The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-10-18 Info Packeti�� IL 4S lt ' M0��` CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org October 18, 2012 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule OCTOBER 23 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda IP3 Copy of memos from City Manager and City Attorney: Taft Speedway Levee (Idyllwild) Project IN Blue Zones Project IP5 Pending Work Session Topics IP6 Memo from City Clerk: Proposed Meeting & Budget Schedule First Quarter 2013 IP7 Memo from City Clerk: Additional Meeting Requests MISCELLANEOUS IP8 Copy of response from Transportation Services Dir. to Mary Gravittt: Broadway Route Detour IP9 Human Rights Commission Award Breakfast IP10 Information from City Manager: The Bond Buyer / Coralville Water & Sewer Debt Slashed IP11 Quarterly Investment Report— July Ito September 30, 2012 IP12 Fire Safety Compliance Report— July Ito September 30, 2012 IP13 Police Bar Check Report— September 2012 IP14 Copy of letter and Protest for Rezoning from Iowa District East, The Lutheran Church to Historic Preservation Commission: Property at 404 E. Jefferson Street IP15 Economic Development Committee preliminary minutes —October 2 IP16 Copy of letter from Mediacom to City Clerk: NFL Network IP17 Copy of letter from Edwin Stone to the School Board: Identity Theft October 18, 2012 Information Packet (continued) 2 DRAFT MINUTES FROM CITY BOARDS &COMMISSIONS IP18 Historic Preservation Commission: September 13 IP19 Housing & Community Development Commission: September 20 IP20 Planning & Zoning Commission: September 20 IP21 Planning & Zoning Commission: October 1 IP22 Planning & Zoning Commission: October 4 IP23 Police Citizens Review Board: October 9 W City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1 �+ ► Ali October 18, 2012 CITY OF IOVWA CITY Date Tuesday, October 23, 2012 Tuesday, October 23, 2012 Tuesday, October 23, 2012 Tuesday, November 13, 2012 Tuesday, November 13, 2012 Tuesday, November 27, 2012 Tuesday, November 27, 2012 Time Meeting 5:00 PM Special Formal Meeting 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting 7:OO13M Special Formal Meeting Mi�i�i�p�lli�?� �� i�'Ic�,��0",i�hi�F 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting 7:OO13M Special Formal Meeting 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting 7:OOPM Special Formal Meeting Subject to change Location Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 4, 2012 5 5:00 PM W I P2 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240 -1826 (319) 3S6 -S000 (319) 3S6 -5009 FAX www.icgoy.org Special Formal / Executive Session 5:00 PM — separate agenda posted City Council Work Session Agenda October 23, 2012 following 5:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 410 E. Washington Street ■ Questions from Council re Agenda Items ■ Taft Speedway Levee [IP # 3] ■ Blue Zone Update [IP # 4] ■ Information Packet Discussion [October 4, 11, 18] ■ Council Time ■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP # 5] ■ Meeting Schedule [IP # 6 & 7] ■ Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations ■ Discussion of City Council appointee evaluation process r 7`1 ®r CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P3 M EM0RANDUM Date: October 18, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Rick Fosse, Public Works Director Re: Taft Speedway Levee Project The Capital Program contains three levee projects as part of the City's post 2008 flood mitigation projects. Of the three, the Taft Speedway Levee Project has generated considerable discussion and debate. Because of this, the National HUD Disaster Recovery Office, who administers the primary funding source for this project, required further study before funds would be committed to begin design. They asked that the study specifically address the feasibility of the project, develop various flood protection alternatives, evaluate their impacts, and solicit and compile public comment. HDR was hired to complete the study and related public input process. The study is now complete and is included in this week's council information packet. At the October 23`d work session, HDR will present the final report and answer initial questions from the City Council. We will also review the attached decision process outline. At the November 27th council meeting there will be an agenda item for public discussion and Council action. HDR will also be available at this meeting. Cc: Ron Knoche Jason Reichart Eleanor Dilkes Marian Karr Jeff Davidson David Purdy Alt 7 — Levee $8.1m Alt 9C — Levee /Floodwall $11.41M Alt 9D — Levee /Floodwall with Taft Speedway Raise 511.7M Alt 8— Floodwall $14.3 M Alt 9A — Levee /Floodwall $13.1M Alt 9B — Levee /Floodwall with Taft Speedway Raise S 13.3 M rD m � n � d (D c rD o Q N M ti 0 o c C n O O rD Z S S � N n N c O Q N o c n a 0 o T m O ON < Q N W+ I rD 3 � o o <<D c — (D rD N O 4 0 < O O N fD o- N Sll O_ 3 7 a < CL v rD a iz o v � N N 0 O T� N W NO N � s o c CL < < s (D D o 0 0 <. o iz (D Q O O r N s O d (D a W n 6 N n D 0 o s; O ID �6 c rD N o Q c (D v 11 6 ID CL O O c Q (D (. - o v Oq 0 cD =r- =5 0, rD Q 0- (D fl T O t) o rt N O O r rD O 3 O_ fl O rD Q Q O FD• O * m J 0 NM n 0 O O 0 O v O Q N (D N N N OV * I (D O N 3 ri Ci � c a N (D O Z 0 0 m C) U) O Z v O n m cn V) O C r Z m r ��®fir CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM DATE: 10/18/2012 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ELEANOR M. DILKES, CITY ATTORNEY RE: TAFT SPEEDWAY LEVEE - IDYLLWILD As Council debates whether to build the Taft Speedway levee it is important that it have an accurate understanding of the City's efforts to assist the owners of the Idyllwild condominiums since the June 2008 flood. The purpose of this memo is to provide Council with the basic facts. Staff will be available at your work session on October 23 to answer any questions you might have. In essence, acquisition of the Idyllwild property was not possible for two reasons: 1) the ownership structure of the condominiums, and 2) the requirements of the funding sources. Idyllwild is one parcel of land containing 23, 4 -unit structures (92 condominium units) established by a Declaration of Submission to Horizontal Property Regime ( "Declaration "), the mechanism under Iowa law that allows the structures (condominium units) on the land to be sold /owned separately and the land to be owned in common by all owners of the units. Idyllwild was developed by Idyllwild Development II, Inc. and is managed by the Idyllwild Condominium Homeowners Association. Each condominium unit owner owns the unit and a fractional share (1/104) of the "common elements," which includes the land on which the units are erected. At the time of the flood and currently only 23 of the 26 four -unit buildings (92 of the 104 units) provided for in the Declaration have been built. In June 2008, the State notified the City that Hazard Mitigation Grant funding ( "HMGP ") would be available to acquire eligible properties. HMGP is a federal program operated by FEMA to mitigate disasters. Properties are acquired, the structures are demolished and the land cannot be used for anything other than green space, in perpetuity. The Iowa Department of Homeland Security administered the HMGP for FEMA. Staff notified Council of the HMGP funding in a memo dated June 25, 2008 from the City Manager and Director of PCD, and Council first discussed the buyout at the June 30, 2008 work session. Although much of the specifics were not yet known, such as what properties would be eligible for the buyout, staff was aware that it needed to complete a Notice of Intent ( "NOI "). The NOI is a document completed by a local governmental entity stating there is interest in receiving HMGP funds to acquire properties. The NOI did not commit the City to an HMGP buyout, but was a pre- requisite to being considered for a buyout. At its work session on June 30, 2008 Council directed staff to proceed with completing a NOI. On August 26, 2008, Council passed Resolution No. 08 -20 authorizing the City Manager to submit a NOI listing all properties that the City wished to acquire with HMGP funds. The NOI included properties whose owners had indicated they were interested in the buyout as well as those who were not and those who had not contacted City staff. Although the HMGP buyout was voluntary, the City chose to be over - inclusive in submitting the NOI in case owners changed their minds. Unless the property was on the NOI, it would not be eligible for the HMGP buyout. All Idyllwild condominium units were listed on the NOI that was submitted to the State on September 12, 2008. Shortly after the NOI was submitted, the State notified the City that it could submit an HMGP application by January 31, 2009. The application had to include a statement signed by the property owner confirming interest in selling to the City (Statement of Voluntary Acquisition). The property owner could subsequently decline to sell, but in order to be eligible and to be included in the application, the owner had to sign this form. In addition to the Statement of Voluntary Acquisition, the property had to meet FEMA's cost/benefit test ( "BCA" or benefit cost analysis). In order to be cost effective, the cost of acquisition must exceed the future benefits. The BCA does not assess damage to a property, but uses a series of variables such as the first floor elevation and replacement costs to assess whether the benefits of purchasing the property exceed the costs of acquisition. The BCA is determined using computer software that the City purchased from FEMA. As an alternative, a "BCA waiver' could be used. Under the BCA waiver, a property had to be in the 100 -year flood plain and had to have had "substantial damage," defined as flood - related damage greater than fifty percent (50 %) of the pre -flood market value of the home. Of all the properties that the City acquired, only one met the BCA test; all others were eligible through the waiver. Needless to say, the BCA test is not easy to meet. None of the Idyllwild condominiums were included in the HMGP application that was approved by Council in Resolution No. 09 -6 on January 6, 2009. Although most of the condominium owners wanted to sell to the City, the Declaration required that 100% of the owners had to approve the sale of the parcel of land. The City could not acquire just some of the condominium units in the buyout; it had to acquire all of them because it is one parcel of land. Given that all the condominium owners would not sign the Statement of Voluntary Acquisition, the property could not be included in the application. Even if all the owners had agreed to sell, the property likely would not have met the BCA test and not have been eligible for the BCA waiver for two reasons. First, the State had taken the position that each building had to be in the 100 -year flood plain, and only three were. The remaining structures had what =ire called "Letters of Map Revision" (LOMR) that had been issued by FEMA between 1995 and 2002. In essence an LOMR takes a structure out of the 100 year flood plain due to the placement of fill. I have attached an August 12, 2008 memo to the City Council from Julie Tallman, the City's flood plain administrator, which explains this process in more detail. Second, the NOI listed damages to all units of approximately $8 million and pre -flood value of approximately $23 million. Thus, the 50% damage threshold was not met. The City Manager informed Council that Idyllwild likely would not be eligible for the HMGP buyout in a memo dated October 2, 2008. The City made offers to buy all properties contained in the HMGP application, which did not include the Idyllwild condominium units. The Declaration for Idyllwild Condominiums provides that 26 buildings will be constructed, but only 23 had been built in June 2008. In the summer of 2009, the City did offer to buy from Idyllwild Development II, Inc. the land in the 100 -year flood plain where 2, 4 -unit structures had yet to be constructed. The land on which the third one was to be built is not in the 100 -year flood plain. The reason for the offer was to ensure that no more units would be built in the 100 -year flood plain. The funding source was through the Community Disaster Grant, a state grant with few restrictions on how it could be used. However, the offer was contingent on this area being removed from the condominium regime, which essentially is a lot split. Without the area being removed from the condominium regime, the City would have had an 8/104 interest in the entire parcel of land and would be subject to assessment for Association dues and expenses. Idyllwild Development II, Inc. was unable to meet this contingency because once again all of the unit owners did not agree. 2 To date, although Idyllwild Development ll, Inc. has had discussions with staff about the three remaining building footprints, the City has not received an application for a building permit. When constructed, the buildings will need to be built one -foot above the 500 -year flood elevation, regardless of whether the "Taft levee" is constructed. This is the result of Ordinance No. 10 -4414 (codified at City Code Section 14 -5J) passed in the aftermath of the flood. Using the same funding source, Community Disaster Grant, the City reimbursed the Idyllwild Condominium Homeowners Association for a substantial amount of flood- related expenses. The City provided $108,695.65 for mold mitigation in five units to cover the cost borne by the Association due to five owners not paying their flood damage assessment because of bankruptcy or foreclosure. The City also paid $8,716.18 to cover the winterization cost of one of the five units and $15,200 for two flood studies conducted by the Association. Without the City's assistance, the Association would have assessed each owner 1/104 of these costs ($132,611.83 or $1,275 per unit owner). Additionally, the City administered and dispersed $1,239,696 in Federal and State Jumpstart funds to 53 condominium unit owners for repairs. Council had decided at its October 6, 2008 work session that the City would not provide Jumpstart housing rehabilitation funds to a homeowner who was eligible for the HMGP buyout and declined to sell. Thus, the Idyllwild condominium owners received Jumpstart housing rehabilitation funds because they were not eligible for the HMGP buyout. There was a second round of buyouts funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Disaster Block Grants (CDBG) and administered by the Iowa Economic Development Authority. Even if all of the owners had voted to participate, Idyllwild could not have been part of the initial CDBG buyout application submitted in 2009 because the properties had to have been substantially damaged, a key eligibility requirement. As discussed above, Idyllwild as a whole was not substantially damaged. In 2011, properties that were not substantially damaged became eligible for the CDBG buyout because the City was placing deed restrictions on the buyout properties. With that said, the City was able to acquire only a handful of homes that were not initially eligible because additional CDBG funds were not available. The City could only "swap" properties, that is if an owner who was initially eligible declined the CDBG buyout, then those funds were available to buy a property that initially was not eligible. It is very unlikely that the State would have provided the City with approximately $23 million to buy Idyllwild even if all of the owners had agreed to sell when the State loosened the CDBG buyout eligibility requirements in 2011. Although the letter from Sally Cline, President of Idyllwild Condominium Owners' Association, to City Council dated September 24, 2012, is accurate on the key point, namely that the City did not offer the owners a buyout, there are some minor discrepancies. For example, she references a meeting with the City Manager on September 29, 2008, in which there was discussion about the Idyllwild properties being removed from the NOI. However, given that the City submitted the NOI on September 12, presumably the reference should be to the HMGP application. In addition to mailing letters to all Idyllwild owners on July 23, 2008 inquiring about interest in the HMGP buyout, staff wrote to the owners of the twelve homes on Taft Speedway. As with Idyllwild, all twelve of the Taft Speedway properties were listed on the NOI. When the time came to submit the HMGP application, the owners of 103 (and the adjacent vacant lot), 119, 301, and 305 Taft Speedway signed the Statement of Voluntary Transaction and were part of the application for HMGP funding. The owners of 119 and 305 subsequently decided not participate in the buyout, and the City acquired only 103 (and the vacant lot) and 301 Taft Speedway. Additionally, the City acquired 105 Taft Speedway, 3 which was not eligible for HMGP funding as it did not meet the cost /benefit test, with Community Disaster Grant funding. In closing, I am attaching a memo from Jeff Davidson and Rick Fosse to City Council dated March 19, 2009. In the memo, Jeff and Rick confirm the objectives that Council developed in late 2008 and early 2009 regarding flood recovery strategy. At the March 23 work session, Council did not change the strategy outlined in their memo. Their memo and a myriad of other documents are still available on the City web site as staff made a concerted effort to post all flood - related documents. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cc: Thomas M. Markus, City Manager Geoff Fruin, Ass't. to the City Manager Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Jeff Davidson, Planning Director Rick Fosse, Public Works Director David Purdy, Flood Recovery Specialist Ron Knoche, City Engineer Julie Tallman, Flood Plain Administrator 4 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 12, 2008 To: City Council From: Julie Tallman, Flood Plain Administrator Re: Idyllwild condominiums — flood plain designation Today, FEMA notified the City that 3 of the 4 -plex structures at Idyllwild are within the 100 year flood plain. On August 7, 2008 FEMA rescinded Letters of Map Revision (LOMR) based on fill for 3 of the 4 -plex structures at Idyllwild (11, 13,15,17 Camborne Circle; 42, 44, 46, 48 Camborne Circle; and 42,44,46,48 Pentire Circle) and determined that these three structures are located in the 100 year flood plain (otherwise known as the SFHA — Special Flood Hazard Area). Between 1995 and 2002, FEMA issued LOMRs (Letters of Map Revision) based on fill to nearly all structures that had been built at Idyllwild. This means that the placement of fill at the building sites was such that the structures were at or above the BFE (base flood elevation). These structures were removed from the 100 year flood plain by virtue of the LOMRs. In August of 2002 the BFE of the Iowa River was increased by about a foot to 651 feet. With this increase in BFE, the three structures noted above were now built on land that was lower than the revised BFE, i.e. no longer out of the flood plain. However, FEMA continued to reauthorize the LOMRs for these 3 structures as recently as February 2007, the date of the most recently published Flood Insurance Rate Map. The City received notice today that FEMA issued a "Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill Determination Document (Non - Removal)" rescinding the earlier letters of removal and stating that these three structures are not removed from the 100 year flood plain. Thus, as of today, the 3 buildings (12 units) noted above are within the 100 year flood plain. The rest are at or above the BFE, continue to have valid LOMRs based on fill and are not within the 100 year flood plain. cc: Michael Lombardo, City Manager Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Marian Karr, City Clerk Jeff Davidson, Planning Director Steve Long, Community Development Doug Boothroy, HIS Director Rick Fosse, PW Director eleanodmemlCC- under2l .doc r 4 k CITY OF IOWA CITY wit M E M 0 RA N D U M_ Date: March 19, 2009 To: City Council From: Jeff Davidson, Department of Planning & Community Development Rick Fosse, Department of Public Works Re: March 23, 2009 work session: discuss flood recovery funding opportunities In conjunction with our ongoing flood recovery efforts, we have recently become apprised of five specific funding opportunities from the State of Iowa. The five programs involve both state funds and federal funds which are administered by the State. There are differing requirements and deadlines for the five programs, but the bottom line is that we must move swiftly to take advantage of these opportunities. At your March 23 work session we would like to step through each program with you and see if we can reach consensus on how to proceed. For each program we would like to: 1. Explain what the program can be used for 2. Explain our recommendation for Iowa City's specific use of the program 3. Discuss with you options for the program so that you can give specific guidance on how you would like us to proceed. Overall Strategy The staff committee that has developed the funding proposals which you will receive on March 23 has tried to be consistent with the overall flood recovery strategy which you agreed to for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). To restate those objectives in priority order: 1. We will attempt to buy out residential property in the 100 -year floodplain of the Iowa River. This will involve purchasing some properties (approximately 40) at the present time, with the goal of buying out the remainder over the next 10 to 15 years. Those who refuse buyout funds will not be granted public funds for the rehabilitation of their homes, nor are they guaranteed that they may not be negatively impacted by future flood mitigation strategies. This strategy is the most effective flood mitigation strategy possible. It reduces risk on the highest flood -prone properties to zero. A property which is bought out cannot be used for anything except open space in perpetuity. 2. For the remainder of the flood - impacted residential neighborhoods in the 500 -year floodplain of the Iowa River, we will implement realistic protection measures that can be implemented at this time. This includes elevating roads in flood -prone neighborhoods, elevating structures, elevating mechanical systems within structures, backflow prevention valves, and attempting to provide secondary access to flood -prone neighborhoods. Council Work Session — March 23, 2009 Page 2 3. Our number one priority public infrastructure project will be the elevation of Park Road Bridge and Dubuque Street. This will assist flood -prone neighborhoods upstream by allowing water to be conveyed downstream more easily and not back up into the neighborhoods. Our second priority public infrastructure project is relocation of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant. These two projects are the focus of our local option sales tax efforts, but additional funding sources will be required as well. 4. If in the future the required funding for levees and flood walls is made available, we will consider such strategies in flood -prone neighborhoods. However, we do not believe such funding opportunities are realistic at the present time and do not believe that flood - impacted residents should be making decisions based on them occurring. We have done preliminary planning to know that these structures could cost approximately $34 million. We thought it would be helpful to restate the above objectives so that you could see how they tie into the strategies for the following five funding programs. Please be prepared to discuss these project proposals and authorize staff to proceed according to your wishes at the March 23 meeting. It is necessary that we receive authorization at the March 23 meeting in order to take advantage of these funding opportunities by the deadlines for the programs. There are at least two programs which have deadlines in April or May. Flood Recovery Specialist David Purdy has time to devote to these grant applications over the next several weeks before he becomes busy with HMGP buyout grant administration. We look forward to the discussion at the March 23 meeting. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Alternatives Study Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Iowa City, IA � r , r lop CITY IOWA CITY Prepared for: City of Iowa City October 2012 Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. ONE COMPANY Many Solutions" PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ ..............................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ ............................... 4 1.1 Project and Study Area .......................................................... ............................... 4 1.2 Purpose ................................................................................... ..............................4 2.0 FLOOD MITIGATION NEEDS ............................................................ ..............................6 2.1 Methodology ............................................................................ ..............................6 2.2 FEMA Regulatory Floodplain ................................................... ..............................6 3.0 FLOOD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ............................................. ..............................8 3.1 Development of Initial Flood Mitigation Alternatives ................ ..............................8 3.1.1 Flood Mitigation Purpose ............................................. ..............................8 3.1.2 Description of Initial Alternatives .................................. ..............................8 3.2 Evaluation of Initial Flood Mitigation Alternatives .................... ..............................9 3.2.1 Criteria /Metrics for Initial Screening ............................. ..............................9 3.2.2 Initial Screening Results ............................................. .............................10 3.3 Development of Final Flood Mitigation Alternatives ............... .............................10 3.4 Design Criteria Assumptions .................................................. .............................22 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................... .............................23 4.1 Environmental ........................................................................ .............................23 4.1.1 Hazardous Materials ................................................... .............................23 4.1.2 Socio- economic .......................................................... .............................23 4.1.3 Archaeological Review ............................................... .............................23 4.1.4 Wetlands ..................................................................... .............................23 4.1.5 T &E Species ............................................................... .............................24 4.1.6 Land Use .................................................................. ............................... 24 4.1.7 Transportation ............................................................. .............................24 4.2 Utilities .................................................................................... .............................24 4.3 Existing Infrastructure ............................................................. .............................30 4.4 Hydraulics ............................................................................... .............................32 4.5 Aesthetics ............................................................................... .............................34 4.6 Other Impacts ......................................................................... .............................36 4.6.1 Flood Insurance .......................................................... .............................36 4.6.2 Floodplain Extent ........................................................ .............................37 4.6.3 Property Acquisition .................................................... .............................37 4.6.4 Value of Property Protected ........................................ .............................39 4.6.5 Residual Risk .............................................................. .............................40 5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................... .............................42 5.1 Public Engagement ................................................................ .............................42 5.2 Public Meeting No. 1 .............................................................. .............................42 5.3 Public Meeting No. 2 .............................................................. .............................42 5.4 Public Meeting No. 3 .............................................................. .............................42 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study i September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 6.0 PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ........................... 44 6.1 Preliminary Capital Costs ....................................................... .............................44 6.2 Operation and Maintenance ................................................... .............................44 7.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................... .............................46 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... .............................48 9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................... .............................50 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study ii September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report A Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Hydraulic Modeling Report B Environmental Review Memorandum for Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study C Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Project Rendering and Floodwall Aesthetic Treatment Examples D Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Geotechnical Data Report E Transcript and Comments From Public Meeting No. 1 F Meeting Materials From Public Meeting No. 1 G Comments From Public Meeting No. 2 Transcript and Comments From Public Meeting No. 3 H Meeting Materials From Public Meetings No. 2 and 3 1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Opinions of Probable Construction Cost Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study iii September 2012 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Project Area ...................... ............................... 5 Figure2: Alternative 2B ................................................................................. .............................15 Figure3: Alternative 7 .................................................................................... .............................16 Figure4: Alternative 8 .................................................................................... .............................17 Figure5: Alternative 9A ................................................................................. .............................18 Figure6: Alternative 9B ................................................................................. .............................19 Figure7: Alternative 9C ................................................................................. .............................20 Figure8: Alternative 9D ................................................................................. .............................21 LIST OF APPENDICES A Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Hydraulic Modeling Report B Environmental Review Memorandum for Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study C Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Project Rendering and Floodwall Aesthetic Treatment Examples D Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Geotechnical Data Report E Transcript and Comments From Public Meeting No. 1 F Meeting Materials From Public Meeting No. 1 G Comments From Public Meeting No. 2 Transcript and Comments From Public Meeting No. 3 H Meeting Materials From Public Meetings No. 2 and 3 1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Opinions of Probable Construction Cost Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study iii September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Meaning CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFS Cubic Feet Per Second DNR Department of Natural Resources EIS Environmental Impact Stud EJ Environmental Justice Elev. Elevation EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Ma FIS Flood Insurance Stud FT Feet GDR Geotechnical Data Report HEC -RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HUD US Department of Housing and Urban Development IDED Iowa Department of Economic Development IEDA Iowa Economic Development Authority LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MIN. Minimum NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NWI National Wetlands Inventory O &M Operations and Maintenance POPCC Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ROW Right of Way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SPT Standard Penetration Test T &E Threatened and Endangered USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WSEL Water Surface Elevation Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study iv September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report *A *01111,11111 kyj 4&1111 d, I d, /a1 ZVI A feasibility study of flood mitigation alternatives for the Taft Speedway area was conducted by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) for the City of Iowa City (City). This flood mitigation study involved assessing the flood mitigation need, identifying a range of flood mitigation alternatives, conducting an initial screening of alternatives, developing screened mitigation alternatives, investigating potential impacts of the screened alternatives, and soliciting public involvement and input. The two most recent significant flooding events that have occurred on the Iowa River were in 1993 and 2008. The summer 1993 flooding elevation was nearly equivalent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 100 -year elevation. The June 2008 flood elevation was nearly equivalent to the FEMA FIS 500 -year elevation. Both flooding events impacted the study area, requiring evacuation of Idyllwild neighborhood and residents living in the vicinity of Taft Speedway and causing substantial flood damage to infrastructure in the area. Through stakeholder and public engagement, ten flood mitigation alternatives were identified for initial screening. Each of these ten alternatives was initially screened based on the alternative's ability to meet project goals, eligibility for funding, and the overall feasibility of the alternative. Five of the flood mitigation alternatives were screened for further evaluation (see Table 2). Following the initial screening, the five screened alternatives were further developed to allow more detailed evaluation of alternative requirements, costs, and impacts. Alternative 9 was further developed into four different options, which resulted in a total of eight final flood mitigation alternatives: Alternative 1 - Do- Nothing: This alternative does not include permanent infrastructure improvements. This alternative would assume temporary access improvements or flood - fighting measures as needed during a flood event. Alternative 2B - Raise Foster Road: This alternative would raise the Foster Road profile to one foot above the 0.2% annual chance water surface elevation (WSEL) to maintain access to the Peninsula area of Iowa City. Alternative 7 - Levee: This alternative would involve the construction of an earthen levee, with required appurtenances, around the Idyllwild neighborhood and Parkview Church primarily along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and Dubuque Street. The top of levee elevation would provide three feet of freeboard over the 1 % annual chance WSEL. Alternative 8 - Floodwall: This alternative would include the construction of a floodwall, with required appurtenances, around the Idyllwild neighborhood and Parkview Church primarily north of Taft Speedway between No Name Road and Dubuque Street. The top of floodwall elevation would provide three feet of freeboard over the 0.2% annual chance WSEL. Alternative 9A - Levee /Floodwall Combination (500 - year): This alternative would include the construction of both a levee and a floodwall. The floodwall would be constructed along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and the access road to Parkview Church. The earthen levee would be constructed along No Name Road between Taft Speedway Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 1 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report and Foster Road, along Taft Speedway from the access road at Parkview church to Dubuque Street, and the east levee tie -back would be along the Dubuque Street ROW from Taft Speedway to the southwest corner of Dubuque Street and Foster Road. The top of levee /floodwall would provide three feet of freeboard over the 0.2% annual chance WSEL. Alternative 9B - Levee /Floodwall Combination with Taft Speedway Raise (500- Year): This alternative would include the construction of both a levee and a floodwall. The floodwall would be constructed along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and the access road to Parkview Church. The earthen levee would be constructed along No Name Road between Taft Speedway and Foster Road, along Taft Speedway from the access road at Parkview church to Dubuque Street, and the east levee tie -back would be along the Dubuque Street ROW from Taft Speedway to the southwest corner of Dubuque Street and Foster Road. The top of levee /floodwall would provide three feet of freeboard over the 0.2% annual chance WSEL. The purpose of this modification to Alternative 9A is to evaluate potential floodwall cost savings due to the shorter floodwall height required with a Taft Speedway road raise. Alternative 9C - Levee /Floodwall Combination (100- Year): This alternative is similar to Alternative 9A, but the top of levee /floodwall would provide three feet of freeboard over the 1 % annual chance WSEL. Alternative 9D - Levee /Floodwall Combination with Taft Speedway Raise (100- Year): This alternative is similar to Alternative 9B, but the top of levee /floodwall would provide three feet of freeboard over the 1 % annual chance WSEL. Each of the eight flood mitigation alternatives was conceptually defined to determine project elements, capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, ROW requirements, and allow evaluation of potential impacts that include: environmental, utilities, existing infrastructure, Iowa River hydraulics, aesthetics, and the value of property protected. Public input was gathered throughout the study using a variety of methods. The first public meeting was held August 25, 2011 to define the study goals and objectives and gather input on flood mitigation alternatives and evaluation criteria. The second meeting was an open house conducted May 31, 2012 to present flood mitigation alternatives The third public meeting was held June 6, 2012 to gather public input on the flood mitigation alternatives. In addition to the public meetings, a project website has been maintained throughout the project to provide information as it becomes available and gather public input. Appendices E, F, G, and H document the public meetings and comment. Each of the screened flood mitigation alternatives is technically feasible. Each of the screened alternatives that involve construction improvements (Alternatives 2B, 7, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, and 9D) have varying levels of environmental, utility, infrastructure, and aesthetic impacts as documented in Section 4.0. None of the alternatives have adverse impacts on Iowa River hydraulics. Table ES -1 summarizes the preliminary opinion of probable construction costs associated with each alternative. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 2 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Table ES -1: Summary of Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs ( POPCC) Screened Alternative POPCC Alternative 2B $3,000,000 Alternative 7 $8,100,000 Alternative 8 $14,300,000 Alternative 9A $13,100,000 Alternative 9B $13,300,000 Alternative 9C $11,400,000 Alternative 9D $11,700,000 Based on the evaluations conducted in this study, Alternative 7 is the alternative that provides flood mitigation for the 1 % annual chance event that best meets project goals. This is based on this alternative's ability to provide the specified level of flood protection to Idyllwild, Parkview Church, and access routes to the Peninsula area. Costs for this alternative are less than the other alternatives that provide the same level and extent of protection, and are within the City's budgeted amount. Finally, this alternative provides the flexibility to allow employment of temporary flood fighting measures to increase the level of protection provided for more extreme events. Based on the evaluations conducted in this study, Alternative 9A is the alternative that provides flood mitigation for the 0.2% annual chance event that best meets project goals. This is based on this alternative's ability to provide the specified level of flood protection to Idyllwild, Parkview Church, and access routes to the Peninsula area. Costs for this alternative are less than the other alternatives that provide the same level and extent of protection. Section 8.0 contains recommendations for consideration. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 3 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Ii KIM I ki III I;To] millet I IQ ki A feasibility study of flood mitigation alternatives for the Taft Speedway area was conducted by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). This flood mitigation study involved assessing the flood mitigation need, identifying a range of flood mitigation alternatives, conducting an initial screening of alternatives, developing screened mitigation alternatives, investigating potential impacts of the screened alternatives, and soliciting public involvement and input. 1.1 Project and Study Area The Taft Speedway area is located in Iowa City, Iowa. The Project Area encompasses the area bounded by Foster Road to the north, Dubuque Street to the east, the Iowa River to the south, and No Name Road to the west. The Study Area includes the area bounded by 1 -80 to the north, Iowa River to the west, Dubuque Street to the east, and City Park and Parkview Terrace to the south. Figure 1 provides a map of the Project and Study Area. The two most recent significant flooding events that have occurred on the Iowa River were in 1993 and 2008. The Summer 1993 flooding elevation was nearly equivalent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 100 -year elevation. The June 2008 flood elevation was nearly equivalent to the FEMA FIS 500 -year elevation. Both flooding events impacted the Idyllwild neighborhood and residents living in the vicinity of Taft Speedway. Residents were evacuated from their homes in this area of Iowa City for both aforementioned flooding events. 1.2 Purpose After the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery Program announced Iowa City was eligible to receive funding to construct a levee along Taft Speedway and No Name Road, the residents in the Taft Speedway and Parkview Terrace neighborhoods requested further study of the viability of flood mitigation and the impacts it would have on their neighborhoods. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Disaster Recovery Office required the City of Iowa City to address the concerns of the Taft Speedway and Parkview Terrace residents and provide additional information regarding the effects flood mitigation would have on them prior to the receipt of CDBG funding. This study will expand on the results on the January 2009 Iowa River Corridor Flood Protection Options for Parkview Terrace and Idyllwild Neighborhoods by Stanley Consultants (2009 Stanley Report). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of various flood mitigation alternatives and the overall impact each alternative would have on the residents and property in the Study Area. This study includes the analysis of environmental and archaeological, utility, and hydraulic impacts; soil stability; accessibility issues; impacts to property values and insurance; funding; and construction scheduling. The Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation study was funded by a CDBG awarded through the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA), formally Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED), and was subject to CDBG guidelines The work described above is discussed in greater detail in the chapters and appendices that follow. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 4 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Figure 1. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study and Project Areas life aoyr ' Mamm Xm'k Elks PmY fYn wy. v,rrs Pe Una IXbwa 3i1Mliiiic 5,41 Cno.r. ra.mw Ary G I 3 wme.. cma �E Pak f I �y Johnson Counly, Iowa Im Full Iowa Cry Water Purification Plant O LJ IuAe C6 s... ma.,•A.. .. I.Unnral Airptl � �` s,ea r. c,rm.., n,. ✓ Legend Pert Q ProjedtBoundary 0 Study Area Boundary Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 5 September 2012 Elks aR �??dw,aY G GI.b Llub 0A H Q pnrlview Peninsula ,kQTarraCB Area \° weak aO 0, HA Par f L are.n s u nur.lrtim g 5 x _mi e cmumk arm 6 i a z re x'T �_ r EKxkx RIXhr rtl AV!` Si 4'wkM�U _ EJV I.". in AV. 6rw.ei.nn rvr� I. r.i ew,n.mom.vrnnaga y tai °nwMAlb. ° Y rlYexA H.I a ' Gp9lq 8 6 w � � µ.�.w AVOa. - �.xf EE o N �. ♦rF, w e.r rr.n sr . alnweoe a.. c w s nsni,m n.. •e OR•rn t .r,rze _ o i c .e LJ IuAe C6 s... ma.,•A.. .. I.Unnral Airptl � �` s,ea r. c,rm.., n,. ✓ Legend Pert Q ProjedtBoundary 0 Study Area Boundary Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 5 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report The evaluation of hydraulic impacts to the Study Area consisted of the use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC - RAS). HR Green, a consultant retained by the City of Iowa City, updates and maintains the Iowa River HEC -RAS model used by Coralville, the University of Iowa, and Iowa City. This model was developed to determine the overall impacts the three entities' post -2008 flood mitigation efforts would have on river levels during particular flood events. HR Green's Iowa River existing conditions model used for the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study is described in more detail below. 2.1 Methodology See Appendix A for more detailed information on the methodology and results of the existing conditions hydraulics analysis. The hydraulics analysis incorporated the use of a HEC -RAS model that has been maintained by HR Green on behalf of Iowa City. This model includes current projects within Iowa City that are currently in planning, design, and construction. The Dubuque Street and Park Road improvements are included in the Iowa City Gateway Project (Gateway Project). The intent of the Gateway Project is to raise Dubuque Road and replace the Park Road bridge over the Iowa River such that they remain open during the 500 -year flood event. In order to evaluate the combined affects the flood mitigation alternatives and Park Road bridge replacement, the flood mitigation alternatives were evaluated with and without the Dubuque Street and Park Road improvements. HR Green evaluated the seven screened alternatives presented in Section 3.3 of this report. Each alternative was evaluated with and without Dubuque Street and Park Road improvements. 2.2 FEMA Regulatory Floodplain The effective regulatory floodplain for the Iowa River is based on hydrology updated in 1994 and 1995 by USACE and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Generally, discharges along the Iowa River below Coralville Dam have been regulated. The updated hydrology reflects updates to the previous discharge frequency curves prepared by USACE in response to the 1993 flood. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were last updated in February 2007; however, the hydrology and hydraulics were not updated as part of the 2007 remapping effort and utilized the previously updated hydrology and hydraulics. Table 1 below provides a summary of discharges and water surface elevations (WSELs) for the Iowa River from the FIS and other sources. The discharges are reported at I -80 and at USGS Gage No. 05454500, which are located upstream and downstream of the Project Area, respectively. The WSELs are referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). FIRM cross sections AN and AO were utilized for reference, as they are located directly downstream and upstream of the Project Area, respectively. See Figure 2 for an excerpt from the FEMA FIRM for the location of cross sections AN and AO with respect to the Project Area. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 6 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Table 1: Summary of Iowa River Hydrology and Hydraulics Return Interval L Dischar a cfs WSEL ft NGVD29 10 -Year 10% Annual Chance At 1 -80: KEY TO NUMBERED STREETS 12,500 AO: 646.5 USGS Ga e : 14,000 AN: 646.0 50 -Year (2% Annual Chance) At 1 -80: Area 20,000 AO: 649.0 USGS Gage': 22,000 AN: 648.5 100 -Yea (1% Annual Chance) At 1 -80: 25,000 AO: 651.0 USGS Gage': 29,000 AN: 650.5 500 -Year 02 01oAnnual Chance At 1-80- CITY OF CORALVILLE 40,000 657.0 USGS Ga e : 1 45,000 1993 Flood 28,200 ZONE AE 650.9 2008 Flood 41,100 ZONE X - 6552 1) The 10 -year and 50 -year data were obtained from the February 16, 2007 FIS. 2) The USGS Gage referenced above refers to the USGS Gage No. 05454500 along the Iowa River in Iowa City. This gage is downstream of the Project Area. 3) The 100 -year and 500 -year discharges were obtained from the February 16, 2007 FIS. 4) The 100 -year and 500 -year WSELs were obtained from the 2009 Stanley Report. 5) The 1993 flood flow values were obtained from the USGS Gage No. 05454500 along the Iowa River in Iowa City. The 1993 flood WSEL was recorded by the City's survey team at approximately the Foster Road and Dubuque Street intersection. 6) The 2008 flood flow values were obtained from the USGS Gage No. 05454500 along the Iowa River in Iowa City. The 2008 flood WSEL was recorded by the City's survey team at approximately the Foster Road and Dubuque Street intersection. Figure 2: Taft Speedway Area FEMA FIRM Excerpt, February 16, 20071 1 This FEMA FIRM excerpt is from Johnson County, Iowa Panel 195 of 450, Map Number 19103CO195E, Effective Date February 16, 2007. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 7 September 2012 1'111NN2 KEY TO NUMBERED STREETS 1. IDVLUAILD DRIVE Project 2. FENnRE CIRCLE ZONE X' Area ONE X ZONE X CALBRIA CT ZONE X FOSTER 9T a, B Y CITY OF CORALVILLE 590369 3 ZONE AE 4 ZONE X - b, Nn RMANDY ST CITY OF IOWA CITY 190171 MANOR DR GIT PA9K QU R L j 051 s_50 ✓� 0872 7, 7 1 This FEMA FIRM excerpt is from Johnson County, Iowa Panel 195 of 450, Map Number 19103CO195E, Effective Date February 16, 2007. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 7 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 3.0 FLOOD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES Various flood mitigation alternatives were identified as part of the preliminary screening phase of the flood mitigation study. The following sections document the identification of the alternatives and the analysis conducted. 3.1 Development of Initial Flood Mitigation Alternatives The development of preliminary flood mitigation alternatives for the Taft Speedway Project Area is described below. 3.1.1 Flood Mitigation Purpose The Idyllwild neighborhood and Taft Speedway area experienced significant flooding as part of the Iowa River flood of record in 2008. This flood of record was nearly equivalent to the 0.2% annual chance storm event in accordance with the FEMA FIS. This flood mitigation study evaluated alternatives for providing flood risk reduction at the 1 % annual chance storm event WSEL and at the 0.2% annual chance storm event WSEL. The flood risk reduction alternatives incorporated options that would attempt to reduce the damage associated with future flood events at the aforementioned frequency levels and to maintain access to the peninsula area. The storm event WSELs utilized to develop the following alternatives are approximations. In the project vicinity, 1 % annual chance WSEL (also known as the 100 -year) is approximately 651.0 feet and the 0.2% annual chance WSEL (also known as the 500 -year) is approximately 657.0 feet (Table 1). 3.1.2 Description of Initial Alternatives Ten initial alternatives were identified through discussion with project stakeholders and public input. These alternatives are described below. 1. Do- Nothing: This alternative does not include permanent infrastructure improvements. This alternative would assume temporary access improvements or flood- fighting measures as needed during a flood event. 2. Raise Foster Road: This alternative would raise the Foster Road profile above the 1 % annual chance, 2008 flood event, and 0.2% annual chance WSELs to maintain access to the Peninsula area of Iowa City. No flood mitigation to the Idyllwild or Taft Speedway residents would be provided by this alternative. 3. CDBG /Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Buyouts: This alternative would include the purchase of structures and property that would potentially be subjected to damage associated with the 0.2% annual chance flood event. 4. Removal /Modification of Burlington Street Dam: This alternative would involve the removal or modification of the Burlington Street Dam to improve Iowa River conveyance of flood flows and lower peak river stages in the area of the Taft Speedway. 5. Iowa River Conveyance Improvements: This alternative would involve the clearing or excavating of river channel improvements and /or removal of bridge obstructions. The result of these improvements would lower peak river WSELs in the Taft Speedway area during flood events. 6. Coralville Reservoir Modification: The USACE, Rock Island District, has said the storage capacity of the reservoir has been reduced by about 15% over the years when the entire Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 8 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report area is considered. The reduction is due to siltation or an increased accumulation of fine sediment on the bottom of the reservoir. However, siltation rates have slowed and lost storage is not yet a concern. The 15 % storage capacity would not have made a significant difference since there was enough water to fill the lake numerous times in 1993 and 2008. USACE Rock Island was asked by former governor Culver to review the water control at the four flood control reservoirs located within Iowa (Saylorville, Coralville, Red Rock — [Rock Island District], Rathbun — [Kansas City District]). The goal would be to find out if there would be any benefit to modifying the water control plans. USACE Rock Island has put together a cost estimate for that work but it is currently unfunded. 7. Levee: This alternative would involve the construction of an earthen levee, with required appurtenances, around the Idyllwild neighborhood primarily along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and Dubuque Street. The west side of the levee would likely tie into high ground at the intersection of the No Name Road and Foster Road. The east side of the levee would likely tie into high ground north of Taft Speedway, west of Dubuque Street, east of Parkview Church, and south of Foster Road. The top -of -levee elevation would provide three feet of freeboard above the 1% or 0.2% annual chance storm WSEL, as applicable. 8. Floodwall: This alternative would include the construction of a floodwall, with required appurtenances, around the Idyllwild neighborhood. The west side of the floodwall would likely tie into high ground southeast of the intersection of the No Name Road and Foster Road. The east side of the floodwall would likely tie into high ground southwest of the intersection of Dubuque Street and Foster Road. The top -of- floodwall elevation would provide three feet of freeboard above the 0.2% annual chance storm WSEL. 9. Levee / Floodwall Combination: This alternative would include the combination of a levee and floodwall in the same alignment as discussed above. The floodwall would be utilized in areas of constrained right of way (ROW). The levee /floodwall combination would provide three feet of freeboard above the 1% or 0.2% annual chance storm WSELs, as applicable. 10. Flood- Proofing of Structures, Including Structure Raises: This alternative would include structural improvements to flood -proof the buildings, site improvements to facilitate flood fighting closures, and /or raising structures to or above the 0.2% annual chance storm WSEL. 3.2 Evaluation of Initial Flood Mitigation Alternatives For the preliminary screening, the above - mentioned alternatives were defined to a conceptual level to make qualitative comparisons. Alternatives were evaluated based on the level of protection that could be provided, feasibility for HUD funding, and technical feasibility. The criteria and initial screening results are provided in more detail below. 3.2.1 Criteria /Metrics for Initial Screening Prior to the initial screening of the ten alternatives provided above, the screening criteria were developed. The Study area was divided into four divisions: Foster Road, Idyllwild, Taft Speedway residents, and Parkview Church. The criteria utilized during the screening process are described below. • 100 -Year Protection Level: This criteria evaluation determines whether the alternative provides flood mitigation at the 100 -year, or 1% annual chance, storm event. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 9 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 2008 Flood Event Protection: This criteria evaluation determines whether the alternative provides flood mitigation at the peak WSEL and flow associated with the 2008 Iowa River flood event. 500 -Year Protection Level: This criteria evaluation determines whether the alternative provides flood mitigation at the 500 -year, or 0.2% annual chance storm event. Flood Mitigation: Flood mitigation is provided at the specified storm event with freeboard. In accordance with Title 44, Chapter 65.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR65.10) for certified levees, freeboard is defined as a minimum of three feet above the 1% annual chance storm WSEL. Additional requirements include that an additional one (1) foot of freeboard is required within 100 feet of a bridge (upstream or downstream) and an additional half of a foot (0.5) of freeboard is required at the upstream end of the levee. For the levee and floodwall alternatives listed herein, three (3) feet of freeboard above the design WSEL is provided for each alternative, unless specifically noted otherwise. Feasibility: This criteria evaluation considers the technical feasibility of that particular alternative. Eligibility for HUD Funding: This criteria evaluation compares the alternatives against eligible activities for HUD funds. Potentially eligible HUD activities include the acquisition of real property, improvements of public facilities and privately owned utilities, the relocation of individuals or businesses, and the clearance, rehabilitation, reconstruction and construction of buildings. CDBG funds cover facilities that are permanent, not temporary, and the improvement must be a minimum of a 100 -year flood mitigation level. 3.2.2 Initial Screening Results A screening matrix was developed that includes: a brief description of the alternative, the results of the screening evaluation using the criteria listed above, and a brief description of the results of the screening process is provided for reference as Table 2 on the following page. Based on the initial screening, five out of ten alternatives were selected for further analysis. The other five alternatives were not further analyzed due to the inability to meet project objectives, ineligibility for grant funding, technically infeasible, or beyond the scope of the current study. 3.3 Development of Final Flood Mitigation Alternatives As discussed above, five alternatives were selected for additional analysis. Alternative 9 was further developed into four different options, which resulted in eight different final flood mitigation alternative options, with the first option being the Do- Nothing alternative. The final alternatives are briefly described below with additional detail provided in subsequent sections. Figures 3 through 9 are provided on subsequent pages providing a visual description of the seven proposed alternatives consisting of improvements. Alternative 1, the Do- Nothing alternative, is not shown in a figure. Alternatives that include levees along No Name Road and Taft Speedway alignments would include the roadway on top of the levee embankment. Alternative 1 - Do- Nothing: This alternative does not include permanent infrastructure improvements. This alternative would assume temporary access improvements or flood - fighting measures as needed during a flood event. Alternative 2B - Raise Foster Road: This alternative would raise the Foster Road profile to one foot above the 0.2% annual chance WSEL to maintain access to the Peninsula Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 10 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report area of Iowa City. The design elevation would be equal to the 0.2% annual chance flood event plus one foot (658.0 ft). See Figure 3. Alternative 7 - Levee: This alternative would involve the construction of an earthen levee, with required appurtenances, around the Idyllwild neighborhood and Parkview Church primarily along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and Dubuque Street. The top of levee elevation would provide three feet of freeboard over the 1% annual chance WSEL. The risk reduction level was modified from the 0.2% annual chance level to the 1 % annual chance level due to the building, utility, and property acquisition impacts along Taft Speedway that would be required and the ROW constraints that limit the level of mitigation a levee could provide. The resulting elevation would be 654.0 ft. The west side of the levee would tie into high ground along No Name Road south of Foster Road. The east side of the levee would tie into high ground north of Taft Speedway, west of Dubuque Street, east of Parkview Church, and south of Foster Road. See Figure 4. Alternative 8 - Floodwall: This alternative would include the construction of a floodwall, with required appurtenances, around the Idyllwild neighborhood and Parkview Church primarily north of Taft Speedway between No Name Road and Dubuque Street. The top - of- floodwall elevation would provide three feet of freeboard over the 0.2% annual chance WSEL. The resulting elevation would be 660.0 ft. The west side of the floodwall would stop southeast of the intersection of No Name Road and Foster Road. The east side of the floodwall would stop southwest of the intersection of Dubuque Street and Foster Road. See Figure 5. Alternative 9A - Levee /Floodwall Combination (500 - year): This alternative would include the construction of both a levee and a floodwall. The floodwall would be constructed along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and the access road to Parkview Church. The earthen levee would be constructed along No Name Road between Taft Speedway and Foster Road, along Taft Speedway from the access road at Parkview church to Dubuque Street, and the east levee tie -back would be along the Dubuque Street ROW from Taft Speedway to the southwest corner of Dubuque Street and Foster Road. The top of levee /floodwall would provide three feet of freeboard over the 0.2% annual chance WSEL. The resulting top -of- levee /floodwall elevation would be at 660.0 ft. See Figure 6. Alternative 9B - Levee /Floodwall Combination with Taft Speedway Raise (500- Year): This alternative would include the construction of both a levee and a floodwall. The floodwall would be constructed along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and the access road to Parkview Church. The earthen levee would be constructed along No Name Road between Taft Speedway and Foster Road, along Taft Speedway from the access road at Parkview church to Dubuque Street, and the east levee tie -back would be along the Dubuque Street ROW from Taft Speedway to the southwest corner of Dubuque Street and Foster Road. The top of levee /floodwall would provide three feet of freeboard over the 0.2% annual chance WSEL. The resulting top of levee /floodwall elevation would be at 660.0 ft. Taft Speedway would be raised in this alternative from the intersection at No Name Road to where the earthen levee begins. The raised profile of Taft Speedway would range in elevation between 649.5 ft to 652.25 ft. The purpose of this modification to Alternative 9A is to evaluate potential floodwall cost savings due to the shorter wall height required with a Taft Speedway road raise. See Figure 7. Alternative 9C - Levee /Floodwall Combination (100- Year): This alternative would include Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 11 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report the construction of both a levee and a floodwall. The floodwall would be constructed along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and the access road to Parkview Church. The earthen levee would be constructed along No Name Road between Taft Speedway and Foster Road, along Taft Speedway from the access road at Parkview church to Dubuque Street, and the east levee tie -back would be along the Dubuque Street ROW from Taft Speedway to the southwest corner of Dubuque Street and Foster Road. The top of levee /floodwall would provide three feet of freeboard over the 1 % annual chance WSEL. The resulting top -of- levee /floodwall elevation would be at 654.0 ft. See Figure 8. Alternative 9D - Levee / F000dwall Combination with Taft Speedway Raise (100 - Year): This alternative would include the construction of both a levee and floodwall. The floodwall would be constructed along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and the access road to Parkview Church. The earthen levee would be constructed along No Name Road between Taft Speedway and Foster Road, along Taft Speedway from the access road at Parkview church to Dubuque Street, and the east levee tie -back would be along the Dubuque Street ROW from Taft Speedway to the southwest corner of Dubuque Street and Foster Road. The top of levee /floodwall would provide three feet of freeboard over the 1 % annual chance WSEL. The resulting top -of- levee /floodwall elevation would be at 654.0 ft. Taft Speedway would be raised in this alternative from the intersection at No Name Road to where the earthen levee begins. The raised profile of Taft Speedway would range in elevation between 649.5 ft to 652.25 ft. The purpose of this modification to Alternative 9C is to evaluate potential floodwall cost savings due to the shorter wall height required with a Taft Speedway road raise. See Figure 9. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 12 September 2012 N rc c C v C uw Q N C N d a m t- 8 s i F E a y 0 T 3 N a p� a' o ff i" d oEO E E �_ ^ _ a p �`L oda 9SEdc ='�cp E�3.cS o;Epao ooYv8g8Eiue$�ry @ A d.2 i E' v?_ a 5 ? E OSoca a; «; a a cE -46E9� rr E$ w° .�' u °aq'q= aAa-"m v'E' E - 5�8� u .Q� ➢m' 3 °ina aaffi °maE- 2 u E v$$ c E anE e p E E^ 4 E'4 E Ei 3 ' -fi o c E b E .6 5PJ A a F _ �' � aE b a g zj"9 i car $ v �- �B Ati a^ E Ea o E u c y 3 a a E c ,,dd a- v E E o a E YE3R @$a� 2-paai an" poi al9Peai �a ny,ad G .puappay f jai z z r z n n z C; pll^"Ihp d py �euq z z z n n o- z z z a a e -'allied r c w'E zpuapisay d d wL z z T z z M E pl!mlAp z z a z u a a e $ Py,aw°1 z z z a a r tppqj, a ii a_ ° a a v E_ s o 3 =��,�8 = c E c c ° c E 8 v & v o $ E c a t c ge F iL r zEE`aEgfi° i a o u 4 i F E i E E E E 8 s i F E a y 0 T 3 N a E 5 4 E � po o� $ � o o " £ a�y aO Ca 2> o >z o� a F 8 l V 3 a y LL T 3 y c aA8 3 3 g i s E 3 E & c " R °w' c 3 E « y `v - 9 s S u z p o E a p q yS"�' ®fig op «�ccq Otacfl'uT T.' a'06gga�`a A3' �yvma €; mBge62'a 2-,w-j anH c a + °J al9lsea� z yvniJ Y ' z o ma�nryied b9uapl.ay 8 lle 1. z z > yPIImIIhPI r r z d Pd .a1=°j r > z «cN y z Ri A ma�nryed > > w `a 9 a"aVlA lle1 z z > yEy ¢° P P1jM�h P 1 Y 2 6 8 P'J .aoeoJ Y Y z yvn-0 Y Y Y ymainyied puapl ay r r E �Ie1 i PI!mllhPI r r sd P'd.ao= -°d r r m x .3 E E 3 E E ¢ P cS n N c E' °n 3 a 6 � E 5 4 E � po o� $ � o o " £ a�y aO Ca 2> o >z o� a F 8 l V 3 a y LL T 3 y c 0 0 LAMN d i R d } 0 My up N li oc -a R O i d qA N O LL W N m d N E C d wi. Q W m " a m LL T N LL T 3 y a M !N r d a. R } O O r ai ai 0 v +. E � v Q ai v +� �a m LL C _O M a 9 O LL T 3 d a o. N s LL T 3 1 / !CZE H l� �ID 9 ¢ s' °o i w t �w BB A Ll r C _O M a 9 O LL T 3 d a o. N s LL T 3 r d d M N d i a ai a 0 Cl Ln �a 3 -a 0 _o LV W y d E � d i Q d h " a m LL T N LL T 3 y ai a, M H d i R d } O O N 3 -a 0 0 d d Go ai a OJ m � d E R d i " a m LL T M 3 h C O Y 0 0 0 LL 3 M d d d N w F T N LL T 3 y ai wl cr a 3 -a ai ai a N r a s 3 4w w a M N _3 L a ai y 0 0 N v f0 0 LL d d d J W cria / m W T d E a d 7. Q � " a m LL V i 7 A s i f w 7 f U U L i i i T N LL T 3 y U E d Q d m LL ai a, M N _3 d i R 0 r Q LL 40 d a d w� W ra m i d Ok T N LL T 3 y m � � 2 � � � � � k � � 8 k � cu 2 � ! � k � ) � 9 � -� <!< ■� )\ / « ( \ |/\ ( 'r ; I Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 3.4 Design Criteria Assumptions In developing the final list of alternatives, a set of design criteria assumptions were utilized to assist with assessing footprint, impacts, and cost. These assumptions are listed below. 1. Iowa City design criteria and the Iowa City Municipal Code were consulted for general requirements. 2. Minimize impacts to existing infrastructure. 3. Account for HMGP buyout lots. 4. Floodwall options considered include I -wall and T -wall designs. I -wall was used for wall heights at 10 feet or less. T -walls were used for wall heights greater than 10 feet. 5. T -walls consist of a spread footing. The footing width was assumed to be twice the height of the wall. 6. No Name Road and Taft Speedway would remain rural roadway sections. It is assumed that applicable variances would be acquired during the design phase. 7. Relief wells and toe drains were the two underseepage control measures considered. Relief wells were placed only in the area of the existing Idyllwild storm water pond directly north of Taft Speedway. Relief well placement was limited due to the level of operation and maintenance required to collect and manage the seepage generated from the wells. Toe drains are less maintenance intensive and utilize subsurface plumbing to manage the generated seepage. Relief wells were placed every 85 feet along the approximate 1,300 -foot long pond. Toe drain was utilized elsewhere along the flood wall and /or levee alignment. 8. The levee section along Taft Speedway was placed to limit the impact to existing buildings and structures. This is the reasoning behind the 100 -year design storm for Alternative 7. A 500 -year levee along Taft Speedway would result in building and structure impacts. 9. The sidewalk impacted along Foster Road in Alternative 2B would be replaced with an 8- foot wide sidewalk section. This wider replacement would be part of Iowa City's Iowa River Corridor Trail expansion. 10. As a result of the public comment received from the first public meeting, a geotechnical engineering analysis was added to the project scope. The geotechnical analysis consisted of a total of 11 borings and three cone penetrometer tests. The borings were located along Taft Speedway, No Name Road, and south of Taft Speedway. The cone penetrometer tests located along No Name Road and Taft Speedway. The results include the following: a. The geotechnical borings revealed that subsurface conditions consist of a mix of sand and clay with bedrock located between 21 and 42 feet below existing ground surface, depending on the boring location, generally deepening as you move towards the river. If seepage cut -off walls are considered during design, the walls would have to be drilled into the bedrock by a depth determined by geotechnical professionals during design. b. Groundwater was encountered during drilling operations between 9 and 15 feet below existing ground surface; however, groundwater levels may vary depending on seasonal variations. c. It was determined that construction of levees /floodwalls in this area is technically feasible. d. See Appendix D for more details on the results of the geotechnical investigation. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 22 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS An impact analysis was performed to determine the potential project impacts for the eight alternatives developed during the screening process. This assessment included the following: environmental, land use, socioeconomic, cultural, transportation, and utility impacts. More detailed information regarding the impact analyses is provided in Appendices A and B. 4.1 Environmental A desktop environmental analysis was included in the evaluation of the Project and Study areas (see Figure 1). No pedestrian survey or wetland delineations were performed. Preliminary evaluations indicate that potential impacts to threatened and endangered (T &E) species and wetlands may occur; however, it is anticipated that these potential impacts would be eliminated during the design phase. With the project potentially being partially funded using HUD funds, the environmental and archaeological review must be conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A summary of the analyses conducted is provided below. 4.1.1 Hazardous Materials There were no hazardous materials or waste sites identified as part of the desktop search. The closest site, a leaking underground storage tank (LUST), was closed in 2002. A Brownfields site located approximately one mile west of the Project Area was closed in 2007 because all contaminants were below statewide standards. Additional information can be found in Section Q of Appendix B. 4.1.2 Socio- economic U.S. Census records were searched to determine the socio- economic status of property owners in the Study Area. It was determined that the Study Area population is more ethnically diverse than Iowa City. Additional information can be found in Section M of Appendix B. Since an environmental assessment is anticipated for this project, additional socio- economic analysis would include the review of property uses, ethnicity and economic status of the properties impacted by each of the screened alternatives to determine impact to Iowa City and the geographic area near the project location. 4.1.3 Archaeological Review The Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) liaison provided site and background data to assist with the archaeological review. The review of these materials did not identify any known historic or archaeological sites within the Study Area. While no known sites were uncovered during the review of these materials, additional coordination is required during the environmental documentation process to complete the review. See Section F of Appendix B for more detailed information. 4.1.4 Wetlands A wetland review was conducted as part of this flood mitigation study. The wetland review included the review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) databases and maps. The review Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 23 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report of NWI resources identified various wetland types and approximate locations in the Study Area. Field wetland delineations would be required to identify the current wetland location and determine specific impacts with respect to the various alternatives. Due to the level of disturbance in the Project Area and the majority of project infrastructure being confined largely within the existing ROW, wetland impacts, if any, would potentially be located in areas adjacent to the existing Idyllwild storm water pond and at existing storm water outfalls. During design, it is anticipated that wetland impacts would be avoided or minimized. 4.1.5 T &E Species Potential threatened or endangered species were reviewed by county listing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) and Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR). Both federally and state - protected species were found to occur in Johnson County, Iowa. Additional coordination with USFWS and Iowa DNR will be required during the environmental documentation process. See Section G of Appendix B for more detailed information. Due to the level of disturbance in the Project Area and the majority of project infrastructure being confined largely within the existing ROW, threatened and endangered species impacts, if any, would potentially be located in areas of tree removal, areas adjacent to the existing Idyllwild storm water pond and at existing storm water outfalls. During design, it is anticipated that threatened and endangered species impacts would be avoided or minimized. 4.1.6 Land Use There are several land use types in the Study Area, including residential, church property, manufactured home park, large wooded acreages, parks, and a golf course. The number of easements for the various alternatives would be determined during design. It is anticipated that property acquisition would be avoided or minimized to the extent practicable. Land acquisition would not be required outside of the Project Area. See Section A of Appendix B for more detailed information. 4.1.7 Transportation The roadways in the Project Area include Dubuque Street to the east, Taft Speedway to the south, No Name Road to the west, and Foster Road to the north. The Iowa River Corridor Trail runs along Dubuque Street and Foster Road within the Project Area. The Iowa City Municipal Airport is approximately 2.4 miles south of the Project Area. No impacts are anticipated on the airport. The project would temporarily impact the roadways and Iowa River Corridor Trail during construction. However, the post- construction roadway and trail network would be identical to the pre- construction network. See Section O of Appendix B for more detailed information. 4.2 Utilities According to information provided by Iowa City on its existing utility infrastructure, there are several existing utilities within the roadway ROWS in the Project Area. Existing utilities include overhead power lines, storm sewer, pressurized water mains and distribution mains, and sanitary sewers. The following provides a summary of utility impact for each of the screened flood mitigation alternatives. Figures of screened alternatives are included in Section 3.0. Alternative 1: Do- Nothing Alternative Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 24 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report i. No Utility Impacts Alternative 213: Raise Foster Road i. Due to the additional embankment associated with the Foster Road raise, the three water mains along Foster Road would need to be raised to avoid issues with the burial depth. The water mains consist of an 8 -inch, 16 -inch, and 30 -inch pipe with associated appurtenances, such as elbow bends, valves, and fire hydrants. ii. Due to the changes to Foster Road, approximately 20 curb inlets would have to be replaced at the new grade of the road, and reconnected to the existing storm sewer system. Additional analysis may be needed to verify whether the existing storm sewer is strong enough for the additional bury depth. iii. Due to the raised elevation of Foster Road, seven overhead electric transmission poles would need to be adjusted to continue to allow for minimum clearance beneath the overhead electric lines. Alternative 7: Levee (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. Due to the impact of the levee bottom width and construction of the levee, the following sanitary sewer impacts were identified: 1. The existing sanitary sewer north of Taft Speedway would need to be removed and replaced landward of the levee toe. 2. The existing sanitary sewer system crossing the proposed location of the levee would be replaced to accommodate the levee footprint and the additional embankment. 3. A proposed sanitary sewer collection system would be constructed south of the levee along Taft Speedway to provide connection points for the Taft Speedway residents. This would eliminate the need to maintain individual sanitary connections under the levee. ii. Due to the impact of the levee bottom width and construction of the levee, the following water main impacts were identified: 1. The existing 12 -inch water main north of Taft Speedway would need to be removed and replaced with a 12 -inch water main landward of the levee toe. 2. The existing 6 -inch water connections that supply water to the Idyllwild neighborhood, south of Newlyn Circle, would need to be removed, replaced, and reconnected to the relocated 12 -inch water main. 3. The existing 12 -inch water main west of No Name Road would need to be removed and replaced farther west of the levee toe iii. The sanitary sewer and water mains would need to retain their 10 -foot horizontal separation after placement landward of the levee toe. iv. Due to the placement of the levee along Taft Speedway, the water connections to the south side of Taft Speedway would be buried deeper and would constitute the removal of critical levee sections for maintenance. In order to remove the need to maintain the water connections beneath the levee, a new 6 -inch water main would be constructed south of the levee. This new water main would be used for water connections for the Taft Speedway residents. v. Due to the placement of the levee around the Idyllwild neighborhood and the Parkview Church, interior drainage needs to be accounted for. A new storm water pump station would be required that would pump interior drainage from the east side of the existing Idyllwild storm water pond to a new gate structure on the riverward side of the levee during larger events. The system would discharge to Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 25 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report the Iowa River with an outlet equipped with a backflow prevention device, such as a flap gate or duckbill valve. vi. The existing storm sewer system crossing Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the levee bottom width and additional compacted fill of the levee. The existing gravity system would continue to operate during low river conditions and be equipped with a positive closure gate in addition to a flap gate or duckbill valve at the outlet. vii. Due to the raised elevation of Taft Speedway, 25 overhead electric transmission poles would need to be adjusted to continue to allow for minimum clearance beneath the overhead electric lines. Alternative 8: Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. The flood wall in this scenario is anticipated to be T -wall with a spread footing along Taft Speedway and within a portion of the Dubuque Street ROW. I -wall with a sheet pile foundation will be utilized along No Name Road and within the remainder of the Dubuque Street ROW. It is assumed that the footing for the T- Wall would be between 24 feet and 31 feet wide. The existing 12 -inch water main north of Taft Speedway would need to be removed and replaced with a 12 -inch water main to avoid the proposed flood wall footing. ii. The existing sanitary sewer system crossing the proposed location of the flood wall along Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall location and depth. iii. A proposed sanitary sewer collection system would be constructed south of the flood wall along Taft Speedway to provide connection points for the Taft Speedway residents. This would eliminate the need to maintain individual sanitary connections under the flood wall. iv. The existing 6 -inch water connections that supply water to the Idyllwild neighborhood, south of Newlyn Circle, would need to be reconnected to the replaced water main. v. Due to the placement of the flood wall along Taft Speedway, the water connections to the south side of Taft Speedway would require significant effort and cost to stabilize the flood wall during maintenance operations of each water connection. In order to remove the need to maintain the water connections beneath the flood wall, a new 6 -inch water main would be constructed south of the Taft Speedway. This new water main would be used for water connections for the Taft Speedway residents. This water main would need to maintain a 10- foot horizontal separation from the sanitary sewer. vi. Due to the placement of the flood wall around the Idyllwild neighborhood and the Parkview Church, interior drainage needs to be accounted for. A new storm water pump station is required that would pump interior drainage from the east side of the existing Idyllwild storm water pond to a new gate structure on the south side of Taft Speedway during larger events. The system would discharge to the Iowa River with an outlet equipped with a backflow prevention device, such as a flap gate or duckbill valve. vii. The existing storm sewer system crossing Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall and footing placement. The existing gravity system would continue to operate during low river conditions and be equipped with a positive closure gate in addition to a flap gate or duckbill valve at the outlet. Alternative 9A: Levee /Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 26 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report i. The existing sanitary sewer system crossing the proposed location of the flood wall along Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall location and depth ii. A proposed sanitary sewer collection system would be constructed south of the levee /flood wall along Taft Speedway to provide connection points for the Taft Speedway residents. This would eliminate the need to maintain individual sanitary connections under the flood wall. iii. The flood wall in this scenario is anticipated to be T -wall with a spread footing along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and the access road for Parkview Church. I -wall with a sheet pile foundation is being utilized in the flood wall and levee transition areas along No Name Road and along Taft Speedway east of the Parkview Church access road. It is assumed that the T -wall footing would be between 24 feet and 31 feet wide. The existing 12 -inch water main north of Taft Speedway would need to be removed and replaced with a 12 -inch water main to avoid the proposed flood wall footing. iv. The existing 6 -inch water connections that supply water to the Idyllwild neighborhood, south of Newlyn Circle, would need to be reconnected to the replaced water main. v. Due to the placement of the flood wall along Taft Speedway, the water connections to the south side of Taft Speedway would require significant effort and cost to stabilize the flood wall during maintenance operations of each water connection. In order to remove the need to maintain the water connections beneath the flood wall, a new 6 -inch water main would be constructed south of the Taft Speedway. This new water main would be used for water connections for the Taft Speedway residents. The water main would need to maintain a 10- foot horizontal separation from the sanitary sewer. vi. Due to the levee bottom width and construction along No Name Road, the existing 12 -inch water main west of No Name Road would need to be removed and replaced farther west of the levee toe. vii. Due to the levee bottom width and construction along No Name Road, the existing sanitary sewer system east of No Name Road would need to be removed and replaced farther east of the levee toe. viii. Due to the placement of the flood wall around the Idyllwild neighborhood and the Parkview Church, interior drainage needs to be accounted for. A new storm water pump station is required that would pump interior drainage from the east side of the existing Idyllwild storm water pond to a new gate structure on the south side of Taft Speedway during larger events. The system would discharge to the Iowa River with an outlet equipped with a backflow prevention device, such as a flap gate or duckbill valve. ix. The existing storm sewer system crossing Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall and footing placement. The existing gravity system would continue to operate during low river conditions and be equipped with a positive closure gate in addition to a flap gate or duckbill valve at the outlet. x. Due to the elevation of the flood wall, 11 overhead electric transmission poles would need to be adjusted to continue to allow for minimum clearance beneath the overhead electric lines. Alternative 913: Levee /Flood Wall With Taft Speedway Raise (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. The existing sanitary sewer system crossing the proposed location of the flood wall along Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall location and depth. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 27 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report ii. A proposed sanitary sewer collection system would be constructed south of the levee /flood wall along Taft Speedway to provide connection points for the Taft Speedway residents. This would eliminate the need to maintain individual sanitary connections under the flood wall. iii. The flood wall in this scenario is anticipated to be T -wall with a spread footing along Taft Speedway between the Idyllwild stormwater pond and the access road for Parkview Church. I -wall with a sheet pile foundation is being utilized in the flood wall and levee transition areas along No Name Road and along Taft Speedway east of the Parkview Church access road. It is assumed that the T- wall footing would be between 22 feet and 26 feet wide. The existing 12 -inch water main north of Taft Speedway would need to be removed and replaced with a 12 -inch water main to avoid the proposed flood wall footing. iv. The existing 6 -inch water connections that supply water to the Idyllwild neighborhood, south of Newlyn Circle, would need to be reconnected to the replaced water main. v. Due to the placement of the flood wall along Taft Speedway, the water connections to the south side of Taft Speedway would require significant effort and cost to stabilize the flood wall during maintenance operations of each water connection. In order to remove the need to maintain the water connections beneath the flood wall, a new 6 -inch water main would be constructed south of the Taft Speedway. This new water main would be used for water connections for the Taft Speedway residents. This water main would need to maintain a 10- foot horizontal separation from the sanitary sewer. vi. Due to the levee bottom width and construction along No Name Road, the existing 12 -inch water main west of No Name Road would need to be removed and replaced farther west of the levee toe. vii. Due to the levee bottom width and construction along No Name Road, the existing sanitary sewer system east of No Name Road would need to be removed and replaced farther east of the levee toe. viii. Due to the placement of the flood wall around the Idyllwild neighborhood and the Parkview Church, interior drainage needs to be accounted for. A new storm water pump station is required that would pump interior drainage from the east side of the existing Idyllwild storm water pond to a new gate structure on the south side of Taft Speedway during larger events. The system would discharge to the Iowa River with an outlet equipped with a backflow prevention device, such as a flap gate or duckbill valve. ix. The existing storm sewer system crossing Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall and footing placement. The existing gravity system would continue to operate during low river conditions and be equipped with a positive closure gate in addition to a flap gate or duckbill valve at the outlet. x. Due to the elevation of the flood wall, 17 overhead electric transmission poles would need to be adjusted to continue to allow for minimum clearance beneath the overhead electric lines. Alternative 9C: Levee /Flood Wall (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. The existing sanitary sewer system crossing the proposed location of the flood wall along Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall location and depth. ii. A proposed sanitary sewer collection system would be constructed south of the levee /flood wall along Taft Speedway to provide connection points for the Taft Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 28 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Speedway residents. This would eliminate the need to maintain individual sanitary connections under the flood wall. iii. The flood wall in this scenario is anticipated to be I -wall with a sheet pile foundation. It is anticipated that the existing 12 -inch water main north of Taft Speedway would need to be removed and replaced with a 12 -inch water main due to the proximity of construction of the I -wall. This impact would be mitigated to the extent possible during design. iv. The existing 6 -inch water connections that supply water to the Idyllwild neighborhood, south of Newlyn Circle, would need to be reconnected to the replaced water main. v. Due to the placement of the flood wall along Taft Speedway, the water connections to the south side of Taft Speedway would require significant effort and cost to stabilize the flood wall during maintenance operations of each water connection. In order to remove the need to maintain the water connections beneath the flood wall, a new 6 -inch water main would be constructed south of the Taft Speedway. This new water main would be used for water connections for the Taft Speedway residents. This water main would need to maintain a 10- foot horizontal separation from the sanitary sewer. vi. Due to the levee bottom width and construction along No Name Road, the existing 12 -inch water main west of No Name Road would need to be removed and replaced farther west of the levee toe. vii. Due to the placement of the flood wall around the Idyllwild neighborhood and the Parkview Church, interior drainage needs to be accounted for. A new storm water pump station is required that would pump interior drainage from the east side of the existing Idyllwild storm water pond to a new gate structure on the south side of Taft Speedway during larger events. The system would discharge to the Iowa River with an outlet equipped with a backflow prevention device, such as a flap gate or duckbill valve. viii. The existing storm sewer system crossing Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall and footing placement. The existing gravity system would continue to operate during low river conditions and be equipped with a positive closure gate in addition to a flap gate or duckbill valve at the outlet. ix. Due to the elevation of the flood wall, 17 overhead electric transmission poles would need to be adjusted to continue to allow for minimum clearance beneath the overhead electric lines. Alternative 9D: Levee /Flood Wall With Taft Speedway Raise (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. The existing sanitary sewer system crossing the proposed location of the flood wall along Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall location and depth ii. A proposed sanitary sewer collection system would be constructed south of the levee /flood wall along Taft Speedway to provide connection points for the Taft Speedway residents. This would eliminate the need to maintain individual sanitary connections under the flood wall. iii. The flood wall in this scenario is anticipated to be I -wall with a sheet pile foundation. It is anticipated that the existing 12 -inch water main north of Taft Speedway would need to be removed and replaced with a 12 -inch water main due to the proximity of construction of the I -wall. This impact would be mitigated to the extent possible during design. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 29 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report iv. The existing 6 -inch water connections that supply water to the Idyllwild neighborhood, south of Newlyn Circle, would need to be reconnected to the replaced water main. v. Due to the placement of the flood wall along Taft Speedway, the water connections to the south side of Taft Speedway would require significant effort and cost to stabilize the flood wall during maintenance operations of each water connection. In order to remove the need to maintain the water connections beneath the flood wall, a new 6 -inch water main would be constructed south of the Taft Speedway. This new water main would be used for water connections for the Taft Speedway residents. This water main would need to maintain a 10- foot horizontal separation from the sanitary sewer. vi. Due to the levee bottom width and construction along No Name Road, the existing 12 -inch water main west of No Name Road would need to be removed and replaced farther west of the levee toe. vii. Due to the placement of the flood wall around the Idyllwild neighborhood and the Parkview Church, interior drainage needs to be accounted for. A new storm water pump station is required that would pump interior drainage from the east side of the existing Idyllwild storm water pond to a new gate structure on the south side of Taft Speedway during larger events. The system would discharge to the Iowa River with an outlet equipped with a backflow prevention device, such as a flap gate or duckbill valve. viii. The existing storm sewer system crossing Taft Speedway would be replaced to accommodate the flood wall and footing placement. The existing gravity system would continue to operate during low river conditions and be equipped with a positive closure gate in addition to a flap gate or duckbill valve at the outlet. ix. Due to the elevation of the flood wall, 17 overhead electric transmission poles would need to be adjusted to continue to allow for minimum clearance beneath the overhead electric lines. 4.3 Existing Infrastructure In addition to environmental and utility impacts, the proposed flood mitigation alternatives would have infrastructure impacts, including sidewalk replacement, driveway entrance reconstruction, and road replacement. The following provides a summary of infrastructure impacts in accordance with each proposed final flood mitigation alternative. Figures of screened alternatives are included in Section 3.0. Alternative 1: Do- Nothing Alternative i. No infrastructure impacts Alternative 213: Raise Foster Road i. Foster Road would need to be reconstructed on top of the compacted embankment. Foster Road would be reconstructed as an urban section with curb and gutter, consistent with existing conditions. ii. The intersections of Foster Road with No Name Road, Idyllwild Drive, and the westernmost entrance to the Parkview Church parking lot would need to be reconstructed. iii. The existing sidewalk south of Foster Road would need to be replaced. It is proposed that the existing sidewalk be replaced with the 8- foot -wide section. Alternative 7: Levee (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would need to be reconstructed on top of the compacted levee fill. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would be reconstructed as a rural road section. The levee cross section would be located within the road Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 30 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report embankment. Given this condition, additional requirements regarding soil type and compaction may be required. ii. The intersections of Taft Speedway with the parking lot entrances to the Parkview Church and the access road entrance for Parkview Church would need to be reconstructed. iii. The intersection of No Name Road with the entrance to the Idyllwild neighborhood would need to be reconstructed. iv. Taft Speedway, west of No Name Road, would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the transition as the top of road elevation decreases from the top of levee to the existing roadway surface. v. Nine driveway entrances on the south side of Taft Speedway would need to be reconstructed to transition from the top of levee to the existing grade of the driveway. vi. The Iowa River Corridor Trail would need to be reconstructed west of Dubuque Street where the trail intersects the levee. Alternative 8: Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. Flood gates would be required at the following intersections: i. No Name Road with the entrance to the Idyllwild neighborhood ii. Taft Speedway with the parking lot entrances for Parkview Church and the access road for Parkview Church Alternative 9A: Levee /Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would need to be reconstructed on top of the compacted levee fill. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would be reconstructed as a rural road section. The levee cross section would be located within the road embankment. Given this condition, additional requirements regarding soil type and compaction may be required. ii. Flood gates would be required at the intersection of Taft Speedway with the parking lot entrances to Parkview Church and the access road for Parkview Church. iii. The intersections of No Name Road with the Idyllwild neighborhood entrance road and Taft Speedway with the access road for Parkview Church would need to be reconstructed. iv. The Iowa River Corridor Trail would need to be reconstructed west of Dubuque Street where the trail intersects the levee. Alternative 913: Levee /Flood Wall With Taft Speedway Raise (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would need to be reconstructed on top of the compacted levee fill. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would be reconstructed as a rural road section. The levee cross section would be located within the road embankment. Given this condition, additional requirements regarding soil type and compaction may be required. ii. Flood gates would be required at the intersection of Taft Speedway with the parking lot entrances to Parkview Church and the access road for Parkview Church. iii. The intersections of Taft Speedway with the parking lot entrances to the Parkview Church and the access road entrance for Parkview Church would need to be reconstructed. iv. The intersection of No Name Road with the entrance to the Idyllwild neighborhood would need to be reconstructed. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 31 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report v. Taft Speedway, west of No Name Road, would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the transition as the top of road elevation decreases from the top of levee to the existing roadway surface. vi. Nine driveway entrances on the south side of Taft Speedway would need to be reconstructed to transition from the top of levee to the existing grade of the driveway. vii. The Iowa River Corridor Trail would need to be reconstructed west of Dubuque Street where the trail intersects the levee. viii. Some sidewalk replacement would be required south of Foster Road at the intersection with No Name Road. Alternative 9C: Levee /Flood Wall (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would need to be reconstructed on top of the compacted levee fill. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would be reconstructed as a rural road section. The levee cross section would be located within the road embankment. Given this condition, additional requirements regarding soil type and compaction may be required. ii. Flood gates would be required at the intersection of Taft Speedway with the parking lot entrances to Parkview Church and the access road for Parkview Church. iii. The intersections of No Name Road with the Idyllwild neighborhood entrance road and Taft Speedway with the access road for Parkview Church would need to be reconstructed. iv. The Iowa River Corridor Trail would need to be reconstructed west of Dubuque Street where the trail intersects the levee. Alternative 9D: Levee /Flood Wall With Taft Speedway Raise (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) i. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would need to be reconstructed on top of the compacted levee fill. Taft Speedway and No Name Road would be reconstructed as a rural road section. The levee cross section would be located within the road embankment. Given this condition, additional requirements regarding soil type and compaction may be required. ii. Flood gates would be required at the intersection of Taft Speedway with the parking lot entrances to Parkview Church and the access road for Parkview Church. iii. The intersections of Taft Speedway with the parking lot entrances to the Parkview Church and the access road entrance for Parkview Church would need to be reconstructed. iv. The intersection of No Name Road with the entrance to the Idyllwild neighborhood would need to be reconstructed. v. Taft Speedway, west of No Name Road, would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the transition as the top of road elevation decreases from the top of levee to the existing roadway surface. vi. Nine driveway entrances on the south side of Taft Speedway would need to be reconstructed to transition from the top of levee to the existing grade of the driveway. vii. The Iowa River Corridor Trail would need to be reconstructed west of Dubuque Street where the trail intersects the levee. 4.4 Hydraulics HR Green analyzed the seven alternatives that included infrastructure improvements by inserting them into the Iowa River HEC -RAS model. The proposed alternatives were analyzed Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 32 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report using both the existing conditions model and the model with the Park Road and Dubuque Streel improvements. The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix A. The results show the seven proposed alternatives with infrastructure improvements have minimal impacts on Iowa River WSELs based upon refined modeling specific to each alternative. Table 3 below provides a summary of the hydraulic results. These results are the same for each alternative, therefore, only one set of results are presented. Table 3: Summary of Proposed Alternative Hydraulic Impact' 1) WSEL impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all con stmcted, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements in place). 2) WSEL impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all con stmcted, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 3) Hydraulic modeling provided by HR Green Company under contract to Iowa City. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 33 September 2012 Intersection Rocky Shore Drive and Park Road 500 Feet Upstream of No Name Road Flood Event Impacts of Impacts of Alternative Impacts of Impacts of Alternative (Year) Alternative With Park Road and Alternative With Park Road and � Alone Dubuque Street � Alone Dubuque Street Im rovementsZ Im rovementsZ 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 500 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 1) WSEL impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all con stmcted, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements in place). 2) WSEL impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all con stmcted, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 3) Hydraulic modeling provided by HR Green Company under contract to Iowa City. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 33 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 4.5 Aesthetics The seven proposed alternatives for flood mitigation have varying degrees of aesthetic impacts to the public. The following paragraphs describe the impacts on the residents north of Foster Road, in Idyllwild, and along Taft Speedway. See Figures 3 through 9 for additional information on the levee and flood wall alternatives. Alternative 2B would involve raising Foster Road approximately 8 feet above existing grade. See Figure 3 for the alternative layout. This additional embankment would provide access to the Peninsula area during high Iowa River WSELs. Only anticipated impact to aesthetics is the raised road embankment. Alternative 7 would involve raising Taft Speedway between 2 feet and 8.5 feet and No Name Road approximately 2 feet above existing grade. See Figure 4 for the location of the varying levee height. Maximum levee height is located at the corner of Taft Speedway and the Dubuque Street ROW. This additional embankment would likely obstruct the views of the Iowa River from Idyllwild residents and would alter the views of the Taft Speedway residents looking north. The existing trees on the north and south sides of Taft Speedway would need to be removed or relocated as a result of the levee bottom width and utility placement, impacting residents and visitors. Alternative 8 would involve the construction of a flood wall along Taft Speedway and No Name Road. The flood wall would be between 10 and 16 feet above existing grade. See Figure 5 for the location of the varying flood wall height. Maximum flood wall height is located at the corner of Taft Speedway and the Dubuque Street ROW. This flood wall would obstruct the view of the Iowa River from Idyllwild residents. Existing trees on the north and south side of Taft Speedway may be impacted due to utility placement. Taft Speedway residents would see the flood wall on the other side of Taft Speedway. Aesthetic treatments could be incorporated into the wall that may lessen the visual impact. These treatments were not included in the alternative cost opinions. Alternative 9A would involve the construction of a flood wall and a levee along Taft Speedway and No Name Road. The flood wall would be between 10 and 14 feet above existing grade. While the floodwall flood mitigation level is the same as provided in Alternative 8, Alternative 9A is a combination of a levee and floodwall. Since the floodwall is not located along the entire alignment, the maximum height is less than provided in Alternative 8. The levee would be between 8 and 16 feet above grade. See Figure 6 for the location of the varying levee and flood wall heights. Maximum flood wall height is located in front of the Parkview Church property and maximum levee height is located at the corner of Taft Speedway and the Dubuque Street ROW. The flood wall would obstruct the view of the Iowa River from the Idyllwild residents. Taft Speedway residents would see the flood wall on the other side of Taft Speedway as well as the levee farther to the east. The existing trees on the north and south sides of Taft Speedway would need to be removed or relocated as a result of the levee bottom width and utility placement, impacting residents and visitors. Aesthetic treatments could be incorporated into the wall that may lessen the visual impact. These treatments were not included in the alternative cost opinions. Alternative 9B would involve the construction of a flood wall and levee along Taft Speedway and No Name Road. It would also involve raising Taft Speedway. The flood wall would be between 7.5 to 11 feet above proposed grade. The levee would be between 8 feet and 16 feet above Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 34 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report existing grade. See Figure 7 for the location of the varying flood wall and levee heights. Maximum flood wall height is located in front of the Parkview Church property and maximum levee height is located along Taft Speedway just west of the Dubuque Street ROW. Taft Speedway would be raised between two to four feet above existing grade. This alternative provides the same level of flood mitigation as Alternative 9A. The height of the floodwall above grade has been revised due to the additional fill provided to raise Taft Speedway. The flood wall would obstruct the view of the Iowa River from the Idyllwild residents. Taft Speedway residents would see the flood wall on the other side of Taft Speedway as well as the higher road profile, and levee to the east. The existing trees on the north and south sides of Taft Speedway would need to be removed or relocated as a result of the levee bottom width and utility placement, impacting residents and visitors. Aesthetic treatments could be incorporated into the wall that may lessen the visual impact. These treatments were not included in the alternative cost opinions. Alternative 9C would involve the construction of a flood wall and a levee along Taft Speedway and No Name Road. The flood wall would be between 4 and 8 feet above existing grade. The levee would be between 2 feet and 8.5 feet above grade. See Figure 8 for the location of the varying flood wall and levee heights. Maximum flood wall height is located in front of the Parkview Church property and maximum levee height is located at the corner of Taft Speedway and the Dubuque Street ROW. The flood wall would obstruct the view of the Iowa River from the Idyllwild residents. Taft Speedway residents would see the flood wall on the other side of Taft Speedway as well as the levee farther to the east. The existing trees on the north and south sides of Taft Speedway would need to be removed or relocated as a result of the levee bottom width and utility placement, impacting residents and visitors. Aesthetic treatments could be incorporated into the wall that may lessen the visual impact. These treatments were not included in the alternative cost opinions. Alternative 9D would involve the construction of a flood wall and levee along Taft Speedway and No Name Road. It would also involve raising Taft Speedway. The flood wall would be between 1.5 to 5 feet above proposed grade. The levee would be between 2.5 and 8.5 feet above existing grade. See Figure 9 for the location of the varying flood wall and levee heights. Maximum flood wall height is located in front of the Parkview Church property and maximum levee height is located along Taft Speedway just west of the Dubuque Street ROW. Taft Speedway would be raised between 2 to 4 feet above existing grade. This alternative provides the same level of flood mitigation as Alternative 9C. The height of the floodwall above grade has been revised due to the additional fill provided to raise Taft Speedway. The flood wall would obstruct the view of the Iowa River from the Idyllwild residents. Taft Speedway residents would see the flood wall on the other side of Taft Speedway as well as the higher road profile, and levee to the east. The existing trees on the north and south sides of Taft Speedway would need to be removed or relocated as a result of the levee bottom width and utility placement, impacting residents and visitors. Aesthetic treatments could be incorporated into the wall that may lessen the visual impact. These treatments were not included in the alternative cost opinions. Table 4 below provides a summary of each alternative with respect to levee and floodwall height above existing grade. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 35 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Table 4: Comparison of Levee and Floodwall Heights Alternative Floodwall Hei hts Above Grade Levee Height Above Grade Minimum ft Maximum ft Minimum ft Maximum ft 7 8 - -- 10 10 - -- 16 2 - -- 8.5 - -- 9A' 14 8 16 9B' 7.5 11 8 16 9C' 4 8 2 8.5 9D' 1.5 5 2 8.5 'Alternatives 9B and 9D include a grade raise of Taft Speedway, resulting in shorter levee and floodwall heights above grade. The top of levee/wall elevation is the same for 9A and 913; likewise the top of levee/wall elevation for 9C and 9D is the same. See Appendix C for a rendering of a few of the proposed project features and examples of aesthetic treatments that can be applied to the floodwall. Public concern was also noted regarding potential aesthetic impacts to visitors at City Park. Views of Taft Speedway are partially obstructed by existing residential development south of Taft Speedway, especially during the growing season when vegetation further obstructs direct views of Taft Speedway. Alternatives consisting of levee /floodwalls along No Name Road and Taft Speedway will therefore be partially visible by park visitors, although the visual impacts are considered minor. 4.6 Other Impacts Through the public involvement process associated with this project, other impacts were mentioned warranting consideration. These impacts are listed below. 4.6.1 Flood Insurance All flood mitigation alternatives evaluated in this study was developed to be compliant with FEMA Levee Certification Guidelines. Levee and /or floodwall certification would involve the submittal of the design, construction, and operation and maintenance specific documentation proving that the levee and /or floodwall meets the requirements of Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations Section 65.10 (44CFR65.10). Proposed improvements could result in floodplain modifications if the alternative is recognized by FEMA as providing a 1- percent - annual- chance level of protection. If a flood mitigation alternative is certified by FEMA, the area behind the levee and /or floodwall would still be considered part of the floodplain and would only change the zone designation. This area would change from Zone AE to a Zone X which means that mandatory flood insurance would not be required, but optional could still be purchased. However, this change would not go into effect until the FIRM has been revised to show the different zones. Because the hydraulic analysis has shown that the various flood mitigation alternatives would not negatively impact WSELs, the floodplain on the river side of the levee would not change. Therefore, insurance for the residents not protected by the proposed alternatives would not change. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 36 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 4.6.2 Floodplain Extent Figure 2 shows the current extents for the Zone AE (1% annual chance) and shaded Zone X (0.2% annual chance) floodplains. The proposed improvements associated with the screened alternatives identified herein would result in floodplain modifications. Those modifications would be reflected on revised FIRMS if the levee and /or flood wall is certified with FEMA. Levee and /or flood wall certification would involve the submittal of the design, construction and operation and maintenance specific documentation proving that the levee and /or flood wall meets the requirements of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 65.10 (44CFR65.10). The following includes anticipated modifications the screened alternatives would have on the FIRM. The anticipated modifications provided below are based upon the conceptual screened alternatives developed during this Project. Design enhancements and changes and final hydraulic modeling results have the potential of modifying the floodplain boundary modifications. A. Alternative 213: This alternative would modify the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplain boundaries north of Foster Road between No Name Road and Idyllwild Drive. B. Alternative 7: This alternative would modify the 100 -year boundary east of No Name Road, north of Taft Speedway, and west of Dubuque Street. The 500 -year floodplain would be redefined within the Project Area as a result of other flood recovery projects associated with Iowa City, Coralville, and the University of Iowa. C. Alternative 8: This alternative would modify the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplain boundaries east of No Name Road, north of Taft Speedway, and west of Dubuque Street. D. Alternatives 9A and 913: These alternatives would modify the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplain boundaries east of No Name Road, north of Taft Speedway, and west of Dubuque Street. E. Alternatives 9C and 9D: These alternatives would modify 100 -year boundary east of No Name Road, north of Taft Speedway, and west of Dubuque Street. The 500 -year floodplain would be redefined within the Project Area as a result of other flood recovery projects associated with Iowa City, Coralville, and the University of Iowa. 4.6.3 Property Acquisition Each of the screened alternatives presented herein would require additional property for the permanent footprint and /or for construction. It is anticipated that additional property would be secured through permanent easements and temporary construction easements. The following paragraphs describe the additional property required for the alternatives. Alternative 213: Temporary construction easements and additional permanent easements would be required for this alternative. i. Additional permanent easements would be required both north of Foster Road from adjacent property owners and south of Foster Road from the Idyllwild neighborhood. ii. Temporary construction easements would be required beyond the footprint of the proposed alternative, shown in Figure 3, to enable construction. Alternative 7: Temporary construction easements and permanent easements would be required for this alternative. i. Permanent easements would be required primarily to the north of Taft Speedway from Parkview Church and the Idyllwild neighborhood for the permanent footprint of the levee and for utility placement. ii. Permanent easements would be required south of Taft Speedway in the vicinity of Taft Speedway residents for utility placement. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 37 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report iii. A permanent easement would be required at the location of the permanent pump station. iv. Temporary construction easements would be required at each access road and driveway that would need to be reconstructed as a result of the levee embankment and for areas beyond the footprint of the levee, shown in Figure 4, to enable construction. These driveway and access roads include the driveways for the Taft Speedway residents south of Taft Speedway, the access road for Parkview Church and the entrance to the Idyllwild neighborhood Alternative 8: Temporary construction and permanent easements would be required for this alternative. i. A permanent easement would be required at the location of the permanent pump station. ii. Permanent easements would be required north of Taft Speedway for utility placement. iii. Temporary construction easements would be required beyond the footprint of the flood wall, as shown in Figure 5, to enable construction. Alternative 9A: Temporary construction easements and permanent easements would be required for this alternative. i. Permanent easements would be required primarily along No Name Road, north of Taft Speedway east of Parkview Church, and along Dubuque Street. ii. Permanent easements would be required north of Taft Speedway for utility placement. iii. Permanent easements would be required at the location of the permanent pump station. iv. Temporary construction easements would be required at each access road and driveway that would need to be reconstructed as a result of the levee embankment and for areas beyond the footprint of the levee, shown in Figure 6, to enable construction. The access roads include those for Parkview Church and the entrance to the Idyllwild neighborhood. Alternative 913: Temporary construction easements and permanent easements would be required for this alternative. i. Permanent easements would be required primarily along No Name Road, north of Taft Speedway east of Parkview Church, and along Dubuque Street. ii. Permanent easements would be required north of Taft Speedway for utility placement. iii. Permanent easements would be required at the location of the permanent pump station. iv. Temporary construction easements would be at each access road and driveway that would need to be reconstructed as a result of the levee embankment and for areas required beyond the footprint of the levee, shown in Figure 7, to enable construction. These driveway and access roads include the driveways for the Taft Speedway residents south of Taft Speedway, the access road for Parkview Church and the entrance to the Idyllwild neighborhood. Alternative 9C: Temporary construction easements and permanent easements would be required for this alternative. i. Permanent easements would be required primarily north of Taft Speedway east of Parkview Church and along Dubuque Street. ii. Permanent easements would be required north of Taft Speedway for utility placement. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 38 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report iii. Permanent easements would be required at the location of the permanent pump station. iv. Temporary construction easements would be required at each access road and driveway that would need to be reconstructed as a result of the levee embankment and for areas beyond the footprint of the levee, shown in Figure 8, to enable construction. These access roads include the access road for Parkview Church and the entrance to the Idyllwild neighborhood. Alternative 9D: Temporary construction easements and permanent easements would be required for this alternative. i. Permanent easements would be required primarily north of Taft Speedway east of Parkview Church and along Dubuque Street. ii. Permanent easements would be required north of Taft Speedway for utility placement. iii. Permanent easements would be required at each driveway and access road that would need to be reconstructed as a result of the levee embankment and at the location of the permanent pump station. iv. Temporary construction easements would be required at each access road and driveway that would need to be reconstructed as a result of the levee embankment and for areas beyond the footprint of the levee, shown in Figure 9, to enable construction. These driveway and access roads include the driveways for the Taft Speedway residents south of Taft Speedway, the access road for Parkview Church and the entrance to the Idyllwild neighborhood 4.6.4 Value of Property Protected The value of property protected associated with the flood mitigation alternatives presented herein include the assessed land value of the property, number of buildings, and land area. The specific value for each alternative are provided below. The assessed land value and number of buildings were obtained from the Johnson County and Iowa City Assessor's database in June 2012. The assessed land value is for the land value only. The value of buildings or other improvements documented in the assessor's database are listed below in addition to the land value estimates. A. Alternative 213: The raising of Foster Road does not provide direct mitigation for properties north of the road. The intent of this alternative is to maintain access to the Peninsula area during a 500 -year flood event. The following benefits provided below are relative to the area accessible by Foster Road due to maintained access during 500 -year Iowa River WSELs. i. The approximate assessed land value for the Peninsula Area, accessible by Foster Road, is $9,713,220. ii. There are approximately 171 structures within the Peninsula Area accessible by Foster Road. iii. The approximate land area of the Peninsula Area, accessible by Foster Road, is 692 acres. Alternatives 7, 9C, and 9D: These alternatives provide flood mitigation to the 100 -year flood level. The benefits identified below also include area located within the area bounded by the levee alignment to the west, Foster Road to the north, the levee alignment to the east, and the levee /flood wall alignment to the south. The area within the 500 -year floodplain limits were not removed from these benefit areas. i. The approximate assessed land value for the area interior of the levee /flood wall alignment is $498,250. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 39 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report ii. The approximate assessed values for the condominiums interior of the levee /flood wall alignment is approximately $10,491,970, based upon 2012 assessed dwelling value as reported by the Johnson County, Iowa Assessor. The range of each condominium's dwelling only value ranges from approximately $90,000 to $150,000. There are approximately 92 condominiums currently being assessed within the Idyllwild neighborhood. There are 12 additional parcel ID numbers assigned by the Johnson County assessor without a dwelling value assigned, corresponding to future units. iii. The condominium units are taxed on both their land value and dwelling value combined. The estimated tax rate applied to these units is approximately 1.6 percent, resulting in an approximate tax revenue of $170,000 per year. In looking at Johnson County Assessor records, the condominium values appear to have been devalued by approximately 25 to 40 percent due to impacts from the 2008 flood event. iv. The approximate assessed value for Parkview Church is $4,544,320. v. There are approximately 24 structures within the levee /flood wall interior. vi. The approximate land area interior to the levee /flood wall alignment area is 33.6 acres. C. Alternatives 8, 9A, and 913: These alternatives provide flood mitigation to the 500 -year flood level. The benefits identified below also include area located within the area bounded by the levee alignment to the west, Foster Road to the north, the levee alignment to the east, and the levee /flood wall alignment to the south. i. The approximate assessed land value for the area within the levee /flood wall alignment is $498,250. ii. The approximate assessed values for the condominiums interior of the levee /flood wall alignment is approximately $10,491,970, based upon 2012 assessed dwelling value as reported by the Johnson County, Iowa Assessor. The range of each condominium's dwelling only value ranges from approximately $90,000 to $150,000. There are approximately 92 condominiums currently being assessed within the Idyllwild neighborhood. There are 12 additional parcel ID numbers assigned by the Johnson County assessor without a dwelling value assigned, corresponding to future units. iii. The condominium units are taxed on both their land value and dwelling value combined. The estimated tax rate applied to these units is approximately 1.6 percent, resulting in an approximate tax revenue of $170,000 per year. In looking at Johnson County Assessor records, the condominium values appear to have been devalued by approximately 25 to 40 percent due to impacts from the 2008 flood event. iv. The approximate assessed value for Parkview Church is $4,544,320. v. There are approximately 24 structures within the levee /flood wall alignment. vi. The approximate land area within the levee /flood wall alignment area is 33.6 acres. 4.6.5 Residual Risk Despite the flood mitigation offered by the alternatives described herein, there is still a residual risk associated with the mitigation alternatives. These residual risks are described in more detail below. 1. The 2008 flood event, based upon peak flow and WSEL, was between the identified 100 -year and 500 -year floods. There is a possibility that a flood event higher than the currently defined 500 -year flood could happen along the Iowa River. Should such a flood Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 40 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report event occur the current top of levee /flood wall would be overtopped and result in flooding of the interior area. 2. Interior flooding is a risk with the levee /flood wall options. While a storm water pump station and backflow prevention devices to the outfalls at the Iowa River are proposed, these measures may not be sufficient due to variability of interior storm events, expected flood timeframes along the Iowa River, and ground water levels in response to precipitation and river flooding events. During significant flooding events, seepage under the levee /flood wall and high ground water tables could produce surface flooding within the levee /flood wall interior. The dependence upon the mechanics of the storm water pump station does present a risk factor for interior flooding; however, this can be mitigated by incorporating redundancy in the design of the storm water pump station. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 41 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT For this flood mitigation study, it was essential that the public be informed and involved through the duration of the project. Gathering public input and comments on the project, alternatives, and study findings was conducted in a variety of methods, as described in more detail below. 5.1 Public Engagement Information on the project was communicated to the public by a series of public meetings, described in more detail below, and through a series of public engagement resources. The public engagement resources utilized during the course of this project included a project website managed by Iowa City, a project website managed by HDR, and items sent through the mail by Iowa City to inform the residents of upcoming project - related meetings. Iowa City contact information was provided to residents to encourage them to contact City staff with any questions or comments throughout the project's duration. HDR provided a location on the project website where the public could submit comments throughout the project's duration. 5.2 Public Meeting No. 1 The first public meeting was conducted on August 25, 2011, at the Parkview Church off of Foster Road. The location of Parkview Church is shown in Figure 1. Approximately 73 people attended the meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to provide the public with an overview of the study, approach, objectives, and project schedule. The public was encouraged to participate in a facilitated public forum format and provide feedback by way of a survey that was designed to help gather community input on the criteria used to screen project alternatives. As a result of this meeting, approximately 51 public comments were collected, which were received at the meeting, by email, from the project website, by letter, and by petition. These comments are provided in Appendix E. A copy of the meeting materials and the recorded transcript from the public meeting are provided in Appendix F. 5.3 Public Meeting No. 2 The second public meeting was conducted on May 31, 2012, at the Parkview Church off of Foster Road. Approximately 49 people attended the open house. The purpose of the open house was to introduce the Study's screened alternatives and provide the public with a description of each alternative, the impacts, and the flood risk reduction provided. The public was encouraged to engage in discussion with City and HDR staff in attendance regarding each of the alternatives and provide feedback either through the staff members or the available comment forms. Four written comments were collected at this meeting, three comments were received from the project website, and three comments were received by email. These comments are provided in Appendix G. A copy of the meeting materials for the open house is provided in Appendix H. 5.4 Public Meeting No. 3 The third public meeting was conducted on June 6, 2012, at the Parkview Church off of Foster Road. Approximately 68 people attended the public meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to present the resulting alternatives, provide a summary of the analyses conducted, and provide the preliminary opinions of probable construction cost (POPCC). The public was encouraged to participate in a facilitated public forum format and provide feedback by way of available Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 42 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report comment forms. Eight written comments were collected at this meeting, one comment was received by email, and no comments were received from the project website. These comments are provided in Appendix G. A copy of the meeting materials for the open house is provided in Appendix H. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 43 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 6.0 PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST 6.1 Preliminary Capital Costs A POPCC was estimated for each screened alternative. The POPCC is based on the configuration of the alternative (as shown in the figures provided in Appendix H), impact analyses described in Section 4 of this report, and the assumptions provided below. 1. The unit costs were estimated based on recent construction cost bid tabulations from Iowa City, coordination with vendors, and coordination with Iowa City. 2. A basemap of the improvements for each alternative was created and used to estimate project quantities and impacts. The basemap utilized 2006 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data provided by Iowa City. 3. The extent of the levee footprints, together with the parcel boundaries obtained from Iowa City, were utilized to estimate temporary and permanent easement requirements. Typical easement costs provided by Iowa City were used in the POPCCs. 4. The location of existing utilities was estimated from information provided by Iowa City and through cursory field reconnaissance. No potholing or survey was conducted to confirm the horizontal or vertical locations. These locations, together with the proposed alternative basemaps, were utilized to estimate utility impacts in the form of depth of cover, anticipated construction - related impact on utility lines, and permanent feature impacts. 5. Proposed improvements were developed in accordance with Iowa City design standards and general engineering industry standards. 6. These costs are based on a preliminary level of assessment. If design moves forward, additional details may affect final design cost. The 25% contingencies applied to each POPCC accounts for the level of uncertainty at this level of design. 7. A standard 8% of the improvement costs were utilized to estimate mobilization and engineering design fee, separately. The POPCCs for each alternative are provided in Appendix I. Detailed and summary POPCCs are provided for each alternative. The summary POPCCs were determined by rounding each category of costs to the nearest hundred thousand. The POPCCs show that Alternative 213 has the lowest POPCC and Alternative 8 has the highest POPCC, at a range of $3 million to $14.3 million. 6.2 Operation and Maintenance Operation and maintenance (O &M) costs were approximated on an annual basis. Iowa City would be responsible for annual O &M costs for the elements associated with the constructed mitigation improvements. O &M costs associated with the screened alternatives would include levee, relief well, and pump station maintenance. Tasks associated with this maintenance include the following: 1. Manage vegetation 2. Rodent control and rodent hole management 3. Levee slope /erosion control 4. Operate the pump station pump each year and conduct preventative maintenance on pump seals, oil, and gaskets 5. Operate the drainage penetration gates 6. Test each relief well every five years Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 44 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Iowa City's approximated annual O &M costs would be $30,000 per year. This approximated O &M cost has the following limitations: 1. Levees contained within roadway embankments would be maintained as part of Iowa City's roadway maintenance and is not included in the approximation presented. 2. Cost does not reflect equipment replacement cost. 3. Cost does not reflect labor cost associated with personnel required to perform O &M activities. The $30,000 annual maintenance costs estimates the following: 1. $16,000/ year for relief well maintenance 2. $4,000/ year for levee maintenance 3. $10,000/ year for pump station maintenance Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 45 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report L/tl1EYl1d,Id,UZYA The feasibility study conducted for the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study revealed a set of eight screened alternatives that were evaluated for meeting the purpose of the project. The evaluation of these eight final alternatives included an initial environmental analysis, an evaluation of utility and infrastructure impacts, a geotechnical profile analysis, and public involvement. As a result of these evaluations, the following conclusions have been identified: 1. Each screened alternative is technically feasible. 2. The environmental analysis concluded that there is a potential for impacts on T &E species and wetlands, although it is anticipated that impacts could be minimized during design. 3. There are multiple utility impacts with each proposed alternative, including overhead electric, water mains, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. 4. There are multiple infrastructure impacts with each proposed alternative, including neighborhood or property access points, sidewalk and trail, and roadway. 5. Alternative 2B would provide access to the Peninsula Area during 0.2% annual chance storm events. 6. Alternatives 7, 8 and 9A through 9D would provide flood mitigation for approximately 24 structures, approximately $498,250 in assessed land value, approximately 92 condominium units currently assessed at approximately $10,491,970, approximately $4,544,320 in total structure value for Parkview Church, and approximately 33.6 acres of land. The City collects approximately $170,000 annually in property tax revenue (2011) from the Idyllwild condominiums. Johnson County Assessor data shows that the 2008 flood event devalued the condominium property values by approximately 25 to 40 percent. 7. The hydraulic modeling conducted by HR Green shows that the proposed alternatives do not negatively impact the hydraulic profile of the Iowa River. 8. There are multiple aesthetic impacts with each proposed alternative, including obstructed river views and impacted views of residents outside of Idyllwild. 9. The geotechnical analysis was conducted as a result of comments received during and after the first public meeting concerning the geotechnical impacts of the foundation soils on the project. The analysis indicated the construction of levees /floodwalls is technically feasible in the Project Area. 10. The POPCCs show that cost of the proposed alternatives ranges from $3 million to $14.3 million. Table 4 below provides a summary of the alternatives with their associated POPCCs. Table 4 also contains alternative POPCCs with potential cost savings measures, including the reduction of the provided freeboard by a foot and the revision of the levee alignment from it's tie -back within the Dubuque Street ROW to the east side of the Parkview Church. Appendix I contains more cost information. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 46 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Table 5: Summary of POPCCs by Screened Alternative Screened Alternative POPCC One Foot Freeboard Reduction POPCC POPCC for Levee Alignment Behind Parkview Church Alternative 2B $3,000,000 - -- - -- Alternative ? $8,100,000 $8,010,000 $7,960 000 Alternative $14,300,000 $13,930,000 $13,250,000 Alternative 9A $13,100,000 $12,840,000 $12,890,000 Alternative 9B $13,300,000 $13,100,000 $13,090,000 Alternative 9C $11,400,000 $11,310,000 $11,330,000 . Alternative 9D $11,700,000 $11,610,000 $11,630,000 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 47 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the analysis of the screened alternatives, several recommendations were identified as optimizations, beyond the scope of this specific phase of the project, to be made during the design and construction phase. These optimizations are identified below in order to minimize the construction cost of the alternatives, manage some of the residual risk identified in Section 4.6, and address public concerns. These recommendations are identified below. 1. Avoid to the extent practicable wetland, threatened and endangered species, and utility impacts. 2. Perform a risk and uncertainty analysis for reducing levee /flood wall freeboard in order to save on project capital cost. 3. Perform a detailed design analysis on flood wall type for structural, financial, and aesthetic purposes. 4. Consider shortening the total length of the levee by moving the east levee tie -back to the east side of Parkview Church rather than the Dubuque Street ROW. 5. Consider rerouting off -site drainage from the north of Foster Road to a discharge point outside of the levee /floodwall risk reduction footprint. For example, the off -site drainage outfall could be diverted to the west side of No Name Road rather than routed through the Idyllwild neighborhood. This would greatly reduce the interior drainage volume and required storm water pump size. HDR recommends that a backflow prevention device be utilized on any diverted outfall in order to reduce risk of backwater flooding within the levee risk reduction perimeter. 6. Review the interior drainage plan and offsite drainage patterns. Consider revisions to a combined interior drainage system, location of the storm water pump station, diversion of off -site drainage to a discharge point exterior to the levee alignment, upsizing interior drainage components, or revising outfall locations. 7. Consider alternate seepage control measures during design. For example, the option of constructing sheet pile into bedrock for seepage control and floodwall footings may result in lower total costs (initial construction costs as well as O &M costs). 8. Consider the alternatives in Table 4 and the potential cost savings available from alternative alignment options. Alternatives are ranked as follows: a. Alternative 2B has the lowest capital cost and maintains access to peninsula area, but provides no flood mitigation for Idyllwild residents or Parkview Church. b. Alternatives 7, 9C, and 9D all provide flood mitigation for the 1% annual chance storm event. Alternative 7 has the lowest capital costs in addition to the continuous levee section providing the flexibility for temporary measures that could be used to provide mitigation for more extreme flooding events. c. Alternative 8 has the highest capital costs for alternatives providing mitigation for the 0.2% annual chance storm event level, but has the least impact on existing infrastructure. d. Alternative 9A has the lowest capital cost for projects providing flood mitigation at a 0.2% annual chance storm event level, but has greater impact on existing infrastructure. e. Alternatives 9B and 9D illustrate that potential cost savings due to shorter levee /wall heights are offset by the costs required to raise Taft Speeway profile. 9. Consider alternative funding sources. Funding may be available through the Senate File 2217 (SF 2217) for flood mitigation projects, as signed by the Governor of Iowa on April 19, 2012. SF 2217 allows for the use of a certain percentage of state sales tax revenue to be used on flood mitigation projects. Revenue generated by this flood mitigation fund Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 48 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report may be awarded on terms of a loan, grant, or forgivable loan. Applications must be submitted in order to qualify for funding through this program. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 49 September 2012 Flood Mitigation Study Alternatives Report Iowa City. September 28, 2011. Iowa City Sanitary Sewer. Iowa City. No date. Storm Sewer Plat. Iowa City. September 29, 2011. Water Utilities Plat. Stanley Consultants Inc. January 2009. Iowa City River Corridor Flood Protection Options for Parkview Terrace and Idyllwild Neighborhoods. Terracon. July 30, 1998. Geotechnical Engineering Report — Proposed Foster Road Improvements. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study 50 September 2012 PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK APPENDIX A: TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY HYDRAULIC MODELING REPORT Xe[C3=14=IA910YI=10YINL /_14wa- 1+_101:/ HR Green, Inc. Iowa River Hydraulic Modeling Project No. 197240J Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Review City of Iowa City, Iowa IOWA RIVER HYDRAULIC MODELING TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD MITIGATION REVIEW October 2012 Prepared For: �r CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared By: HRGreen HR Green, Inc. Project No. 197240J Iowa River Hydraulic Modeling Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Review City of Iowa City, Iowa I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me or under my SSf Off O direct personal supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State Iowa. �O ;,a y t Dale: October 17, 2012 Z MICHAEL J. 41 MICHAEL J. RYAN, P.E. W RYAN m License No. 9525 j9525 My renewal date is December 31, 2013 Pages or sheets covered by this seal: >3 fO W P j�c All Pages and Figures HR Green, Inc. Iowa River Hydraulic Modeling Project No. 197240J Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Review City of Iowa City, Iowa TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. ..............................1 TAFT SPEEDWAY ANALYSIS ......................................................... ..............................1 MODELING RESULTS ....................................................................... ..............................3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 — 7 Iowa River Corridor Project Map ................. ...........................4 -10 Figure 8 — Alternative 2B Park and Dubuque Existing ........... .............................11 Figure 9 -- Alternative 2B Park and Dubuque Improvements .............................12 Figure 10 — Alternative 7 Park and Dubuque Existing ............. .............................13 Figure 11 - Alternative 7 Park and Dubuque Improvements .. .............................14 Figure 12 — Alternative 8 Park and Dubuque Existing ............. .............................15 Figure 13 — Alternative 8 Park and Dubuque Improvements .. .............................16 Figure 14 — Alternative 9A Park and Dubuque Existing .......... .............................17 Figure 15 - Alternative 9A Park and Dubuque Improvements ............................18 Figure 16 — Alternative 9B Park and Dubuque Existing .......... .............................19 Figure 17 -- Alternative 9B Park and Dubuque Improvements ...........................20 Figure 18 — Alternative 9C Park and Dubuque Existing .......... .............................21 Figure 19 - Alternative 9C Park and Dubuque Improvements ..........................22 Figure 20 — Alternative 9D Park and Dubuque Existing .......... .............................23 Figure 21 -- Alternative 9D Park and Dubuque Improvements ...........................24 Figure 22 — Alternative9D Park and Dubuque Existing ........... .............................25 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 — Flood Profile Elevations .......................................... ..........................26 -50 HR Green, Inc. Project No. 197240J INTRODUCTION Iowa River Hydraulic Modeling Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Review City of Iowa City, Iowa The Iowa River Hydraulic Modeling Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Review is the hydraulic analysis for various alternatives developed for flood protection in the Taft Speedway area of Iowa City. The modeling work completed for this review used the hydraulic model developed for the Iowa River Hydraulic Modeling Summary Report, April 2011. This report summarizes the work completed to review the Taft Speedway area and the reader can also reference back to the original study work for specifics on modeling procedures and other background information. Primarily, the hydraulic model used for both study efforts, simulates Iowa River flood conditions from the Coralville Reservoir south to the southern Iowa City Corporate Limits crossing the Iowa River. Beyond the Taft Speedway Alternatives, the model incorporated other constructed and planned flood protection methods including: City of Coralville Flood protection level to be built to the 2008 flood level plus one foot freeboard. • Low earth berms for the Edgewater Berm Improvement Project designed by the City of Coralville. • Earth berms, floodwalls and retaining wall protection apart of the Iowa River Landing Flood Protection Project. • Earth berm protection for the Region B Project. • Floodwall and CRANDIC railroad berm improvements. City of Iowa City Flood protection level to be the 500 -year flood elevation plus 3 -foot freeboard. • Inclusion of Idyllwild Levee. • Grading adjustments to Dubuque Road. • Replacement of the existing Park Road Bridge with a longer bridge span and raised low chord elevation. (Modeled as both existing conditions and future conditions for this Taft Speedway analysis) • Removal of North Treatment Facility. • Inclusion of Iowa City Levees from U.S Hwy 6 Bridge (river station 16452) to McCollister Bridge (river station 9491). University of Iowa • Removal of Hancher Auditorium and Voxman Music Building. • Inclusion of Phase I and Phase II sidewalk improvements. • Placement of temporary three foot tall HESCO barriers for all locations of Phase I and Phase II sidewalk improvements. TAFT SPEEDWAY ANALYSIS The modeling evaluates to primary conditions for the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Alternatives. The alternatives to evaluate were supplied to H R Green by HDR Engineering, Inc., consultants for the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study. HR Green, Inc. Project No. 197240J Iowa River Hydraulic Modeling Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Review City of Iowa City, Iowa Condition 1 for each alternative models the hydraulic conditions on the Iowa River with existing conditions for the Dubuque Street and Park Road Bridge area and all other improvements outlined above "in- place ". Condition 2 will model the Iowa River with the proposed Dubuque Street and Park Road Bridge Improvements "in- place" along with the other referenced improvements being "in- place". Discharges modeled included flows developed for the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the 10 -year, the 50 -year, the100 -year and the 500 -year discharge estimates and the 2008 flood peak discharge. Additional flows modeled included flows between the 500 - year flood discharge value and the measured 2008 discharge through the Iowa River study reach. Taft Speedway Alternatives reviewed in the modeling process included the following Alternative 213- Raise Foster Road: This alternative would raise the Foster Road profile to be approximately one foot above the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation. Alternative 7- Levee: Earthen levee construction primarily along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and Dubuque Street. Top of levee would be three feet above the Flood Insurance Base Flood level (1% annual chance occurrence). Alternative 8- Floodwall: Construction of a floodwall primarily north of Taft Speedway road alignment. The floodwall elevation would provide three feet of freeboard over the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation. Alternative 9A- Levee /Floodwall Combination: Construction of both a levee and floodwall. The location would be along Taft Speedway between No Name Road and the access road to Parkview Church. The earthen levee would be located along No Name Road between Taft Speedway and Foster Road, along Taft Speedway from the access road at the church to Dubuque Street. The east levee tie -back would be along Dubuque Street right -of -way from Taft Speedway to the southwest corner of Dubuque Street and Foster Road. Height would be three feet of freeboard over the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation. Alternative 9B- Levee /Floodwall Combination with Taft Speedway Raise: Plan similar to 9A but modified to evaluate floodwall cost savings due to the shorter floodwall height required with a Taft Speedway road raise. The top of the floodwall /levee would be three feet freeboard above the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation. Alternative 9C- Levee /Floodwall Combination: This alternative is similar to Alternative 9A, but the top of the levee /floodwall would be at three feet above the 1% annual chance flood elevation. Alternative 9D- Levee /Floodwall Combination with Taft Speedway Raise: This alternative is similar to Alternative 9B, but the top of levee /floodwall would provide three feet of freeboard over the 1% annual chance flood elevation. 2 HR Green, Inc. Iowa River Hydraulic Modeling Project No. 197240J Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Review City of Iowa City, Iowa Modeling Results Figures 1 through 7 indicate the location of cross sections for the hydraulic modeling and also the flood control improvements referenced for inclusion in the hydraulic model. Remaining figures indicate the flood limits or flood inundation boundaries are indicated for the Taft Speedway Mitigation Study alternatives. Actual water surface elevations are referenced in Table 1 following the figures. The flood control measures modeled do not vary in any significance between different alternatives. Any variation in elevation between alternatives is near 0.01 feet and is considered a negligible variance considering modeling accuracy and numeric "rounding" to the nearest hundredth of a foot in the model. As referenced in the Iowa River Modeling Summary Report, planned improvements at Dubuque Street and Park Road decrease flood profile elevations in the Taft Speedway area, and the alternatives for the Taft Speedway area do not affect this reduction in flood elevations based on the bridge and roadway improvements at Dubuque Street and Park Road. 3 IN R �I Iowa River Landinj >f� Flood Mitigation„�.'' r; r r `� -_ _ � -. gee.(• Biscuit Creek and Clear Creek Storm Sewer 1 Flood Mitigation Backgow Prevention - ° levation � r \ P. Iowa River Corridor �� ^d CarasooreesC iyorooralville ,CtyorlowaCAXHR Green, snoe�I-Haalan4 un.erebyor Iowa RCG Project Ma 1 P ■ ColaN111e Pump Station p gps psp 5C0 Rojeaed COOmin=,eaenn Nno 19e3 HaiN Grote Plane noreaion LarrberrConforrrel Cone Iowa soua — CoraNille Flootlwalls and Levees ® Map PobliS Map, 2rnn,HRGree Figure ■ bwa City Pump Station Feer c inch =500 feet isradelrreoo,HRCreeo d — bwa City Levees HRGreen r \` - 4,m rz Iowa River Corridor ModeIin9 Layout � mrea�iryau°mp smtwoe� Figures — °"° °ry ""° o� yr �e -W, IM Data San— _Ct,e CmaN Ile, Cry of rows cry, HR Green, snoaml un.era°vor Iowa 0 18]53]5 den Roia6e° Caar°inare S a em NHO1963 HMN Grate Plane IowaSrrN nojecran, Larroe°conrorrrel cone ® Ma -rarT d 2lJanwry26fl Feet MapM lehed 1Jan HRGreen 1 inch = 750 feet "' HRGreen 0 1. ., a,.mor Road Park Road 1, O 'jZ' 0 ¢°aAiA h;" •✓� biliIIIIN 26650 26494 O 26362 i 0 2 2g2B0 do 4pS0 to 9 23 Sa. s �170 Iowa Avenue 98 Burlington Street n 1 AI r r IF} r it 4 } . � Trr i 11 r.21.11 Umitriiali l `Et a �. F tlC14�c�• y �r� � �z,•_r -r y, sr. Iowa River Corridor "" "° Patron...a Cih °` °ealwlle. ° "y ° "°"' ° "r HRCme ". Modeling Layout Y eBFlOOew na levees 0 98]53]5 ysp SM1oertaker Haaland One ernryo! Iowa Prodded Coordinate Seat —_ NAP 1983 HA4N State Plane Iowa sent O ■love clllryrumy Itti ® Prledm¢ Le mbee Cone mat Co no recur Fcel Map Pnblisbee_ 21 Jan nary2811 AutMr_TStaeelrrenn,Ha Green Figure 6 Irm Unr, =nMot�o,wPro,rn, r inch = 7soreal HRGreen .: '1m;7 190y5 18865 18569 StYeet {,FF— 18293 8 ao' 18093 r e m ' o 6893 Legend Iowa River Corridor — HEG41AS Cross Section Modeling Layout — iI City Leprous Figure 7 Southgate Avenue Kirkwood Avenue r Dan Garr— cl9' of Caralvire, Cry of rowa cAx HR Green, snoerrok- Haaland, un.ereayof Iowa 0 187537 den Rojeaed coordinate Searem NAO 1963 HMN Grate Plane lawe GOnN Projection Lambed Gonfarrrelcone ® ItnPobliS d 2 nn,HRGr e Feet MapM bSrade 21Jan HRGrezn 1 inch = 750 feet "' HRGreen a rn R 6 a rn R 6 g�� - f136 IMF - •. Ir k ` J 'Y Y a r 40 I_ w �' '.�Y � ♦ s�.. ��+h. �, lip; i�� e,•r�..f� •�'� { i d % a a a W z� 3 04� moA a o m a v a o C N W N U N m C N � X v w W C � d � C Q U N � a t x � m a W z� 3 04� moA o G a o N C N W N U Ul N C W W � O a w e w V m a e s a c m Y N a a rn R 6 a rn R 6 a rn R 6 W z� 3 04� moA o a o U a o C N W N U N N C W E W rn o a O `! c v V m � `w Oc o 0 L ¢ a e � t O 0 0 'Qi s c m Y N a • • r fi 1 \' \40 � ' • man V.u� ./• :..: ry ' L all i y I µ •J �\ j s a a a rn R 6 a rn R 6 W z� 3 mE ol o0, ®_ a 3 v a o x c d w d U Ul N C W W rn o a � O N c y U m LL 0 O i a c m m a r"'' i V. ✓ i��t�i� al �l!�0.'t � NY 1 ry- tttt A e 7 s � " a a Table 1 10 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 26 Existing 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 Coralville Dam 67352 Improvements 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 657.02 Existing 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 67099 Improvements 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 657.03 Existing 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 66928 Improvements 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.06 Existing 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 66042 Improvements 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 656.97 Existing 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 65663 Improvements 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 656.92 Existing 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 65223 Improvements 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.86 Existing 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 64906 Improvements 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 656.78 Existing 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 64641 Improvements 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 656.68 Existing 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 63368 Improvements 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.49 Existing 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 61796 Improvements 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.33 Existing 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 60692 Improvements 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 656.17 Existing 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 59132 Improvements 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 Existing 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 58544 Improvements 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 Existing 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 56688 Improvements 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 655.34 Existing 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 55117 Improvements 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 Existing 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 53976 Improvements 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 654.86 Existing 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 53465 Improvements 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 Existing 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 52343 Improvements 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 Dubuque St Existing 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 51702 Bridge Improvements 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 654.36 Existing 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 51556 Improvements 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 Existing 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 51341 Improvements 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 654.32 Existing 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 50946 Improvements 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 654.26 Existing 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 50435 Improvements 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 Existing 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 49275 Improvements 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 654.05 Existing 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 48218 Improvements 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 Existing 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 47224 Improvements 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 653.73 Existing 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 46506 Improvements 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 653.71 26 Table 1 10 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 27 Existing 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 45778 Improvements 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 653.68 Existing 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 45458 Improvements 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 653.62 Existing 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 -80 Bridge 45257 Improvements 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 Existing 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 44983 Improvements 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 653.45 Existing 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 44554 Improvements 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 653.40 Existing 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 44043 Improvements 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 653.29 Existing 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 43117 Improvements 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 653.17 Existing 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 42713 Improvements 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 Existing 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 42329 Improvements 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 652.87 Existing 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 41497 Improvements 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 652.81 Existing 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 40578 Improvements 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 652.77 Existing 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 40118 Improvements 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 652.75 Existing 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 39810 Improvements 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 652.72 Existing 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 39593 Improvements 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 651.99 Existing 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 39528 Improvements 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 649.49 Existing 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 39478 Improvements 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 Existing 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 39328 Improvements 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 647.97 Existing 647.89 647.89 647.89 647.89 647.89 647.89 647.89 647.89 39118 Improvements 647.87 647.87 647.87 647.87 647.87 647.87 647.87 647.87 Existing 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 38643 Improvements 647.81 647.81 647.82 647.82 647.82 647.82 647.82 647.82 Existing 647.67 647.67 647.67 647.67 647.67 647.67 647.67 647.67 37846 Improvements 647.65 647.65 647.65 647.65 647.65 647.65 647.65 647.65 Existing 647.52 647.52 647.52 647.52 647.52 647.52 647.52 647.52 37462 Improvements 647.50 647.50 647.50 647.50 647.50 647.50 647.50 647.50 Existing 647.27 647.27 647.27 647.27 647.27 647.27 647.27 647.27 36457 Improvements 647.25 647.25 647.25 647.25 647.25 647.25 647.25 647.25 Existing 646.99 646.99 646.99 646.99 646.99 646.99 646.99 646.99 35210 Improvements 646.96 646.96 646.96 646.96 646.96 646.96 646.96 646.96 Existing 646.90 646.90 646.90 646.90 646.90 646.90 646.90 646.90 34343 Improvements 646.88 646.88 646.88 646.88 646.88 646.88 646.88 646.88 Existing 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 33940 Improvements 646.85 646.85 646.85 646.85 646.85 646.85 646.85 646.85 Existing 646.81 646.81 646.81 646.81 646.81 646.81 646.81 646.81 33557 Improvements 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 Existing 646.70 646.70 646.71 646.71 646.71 646.71 646.71 646.71 33063 Improvements 646.68 646.68 646.68 646.68 646.68 646.68 646.68 646.68 27 Table 1 10 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 28 Existing 646.65 646.65 646.65 646.65 646.65 646.65 646.65 646.65 32535 Improvements 646.63 646.63 646.63 646.63 646.63 646.63 646.63 646.63 Existing 646.48 646.48 646.49 646.49 646.49 646.49 646.49 646.49 31345 Improvements 646.46 646.46 646.46 646.46 646.46 646.46 646.46 646.46 Existing 646.45 646.45 646.45 646.45 646.45 646.45 646.45 646.45 30940 Improvements 646.42 646.42 646.42 646.42 646.42 646.42 646.42 646.42 Existing 646.25 646.25 646.26 646.26 646.26 646.26 646.26 646.26 30475 US End Idyllwild Improvements 646.22 646.22 646.23 646.23 646.23 646.23 646.23 646.23 Existing 645.83 645.83 645.84 645.84 645.84 645.84 645.84 645.84 29763 Improvements 645.80 645.80 645.80 645.80 645.80 645.80 645.80 645.80 Existing 645.42 645.42 645.42 645.42 645.42 645.42 645.42 645.42 28770 DS End Idyllwild Improvements 645.39 645.39 645.38 645.38 645.38 645.38 645.38 645.38 Existing 645.44 645.44 645.44 645.44 645.44 645.44 645.44 645.44 28443 Improvements 645.40 645.40 645.40 645.40 645.40 645.40 645.40 645.40 Existing 645.35 645.35 645.35 645.35 645.35 645.35 645.35 645.35 27911 Improvements 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 Existing 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 27226 Improvements 645.02 645.02 645.02 645.02 645.02 645.02 645.02 645.02 Existing 644.99 644.99 644.99 644.99 644.99 644.99 644.99 644.99 26650 Improvements 644.94 644.94 644.94 644.94 644.94 644.94 644.94 644.94 Existing 644.90 644.90 644.90 644.90 644.90 644.90 644.90 644.90 Park Rd Bridge 26494 Improvements 644.86 644.86 644.86 644.86 644.86 644.86 644.86 644.86 Existing 644.79 644.79 644.79 644.79 644.79 644.79 644.79 644.79 26352 Improvements 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 Existing 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 25814 Improvements 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 644.66 Existing 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 25435 Improvements 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 644.56 Existing 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 25031 Improvements 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 644.47 Existing 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 24889 Improvements 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 644.44 Existing 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 24757 Improvements 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 644.40 Existing 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 24679 Improvements 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 Existing 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 24280 Improvements 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 644.25 Existing 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 24050 Improvements 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 644.23 Existing 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 23764 Improvements 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 644.15 Existing 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 23556 Improvements 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 644.10 Existing 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 23315 Improvements 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 Existing 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 23151 Improvements 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 644.03 Existing 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 23087 Improvements 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 643.99 Existing 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 22864 Improvements 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 Existing 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 22731 Improvements 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 28 Table 1 10 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 29 Existing 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 22598 Improvements 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 Existing 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 22522 Improvements 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 Existing 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 22464 Improvements 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 Existing 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 22459 Improvements 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 643.95 Existing 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 22439 Improvements 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 Existing 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 22434 Improvements 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 643.94 Existing 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 22393 Improvements 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 643.92 Existing 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 22170 Improvements 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 643.86 Existing 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 22069 Improvements 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 Existing 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 21850 Improvements 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 643.65 Existing 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 21627 Improvements 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 Existing 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 21426 Improvements 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 643.56 Existing 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 21265 Improvements 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 643.47 Burlington St Existing 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 21024 Bridge Improvements 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 Existing 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 20944 Improvements 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 643.23 Existing 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 20866 Improvements 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 642.96 Existing 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 20854 Improvements 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 Existing 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 20798 Improvements 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 640.65 Existing 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 20475 Improvements 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 Existing 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 19969 Improvements 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 640.40 Existing 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 19512 Improvements 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 640.35 Existing 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 19025 Improvements 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 640.28 Existing 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 18865 Improvements 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 640.18 Existing 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 18569 Improvements 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 640.08 Existing 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 18293 Improvements 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 640.05 Existing 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 18093 Improvements 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 639.98 Existing 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 17428 Improvements 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 639.88 29 Table 1 10 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 30 Existing 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 16633 Improvements 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 639.80 Existing 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 16452 Improvements 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 639.76 Existing 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 16158 Improvements 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 639.67 Existing 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 15887 Improvements 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 639.59 Existing 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 14870 Improvements 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 639.45 Existing 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 13901 Improvements 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 639.38 Existing 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 12509 Improvements 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 639.26 Existing 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 12427 Improvements 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 639.20 Existing 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 12291 Improvements 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 639.17 Existing 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 11056 Improvements 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 638.91 Existing 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 10087 Improvements 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 638.80 Existing 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 9664 Improvements 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 638.72 McCollister Existing 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 9491 Bridge Improvements 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 638.63 Existing 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 9369 Improvements 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 638.60 Existing 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 8971 Improvements 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 638.55 Existing 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 8021 Improvements 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 638.37 Existing 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 7574 Improvements 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 638.33 Existing 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 7237 Improvements 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 638.34 Existing 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 6893 Improvements 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 638.18 30 Table 1 50 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 31 Existing 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 Coralville Dam 67352 Improvements 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 Existing 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 67099 Improvements 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 660.97 Existing 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 66928 Improvements 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 661.01 Existing 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 66042 Improvements 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 660.88 Existing 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 65663 Improvements 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.79 Existing 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 65223 Improvements 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 660.72 Existing 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 64906 Improvements 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 660.59 Existing 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 64641 Improvements 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.41 Existing 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 63368 Improvements 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 660.15 Existing 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 61796 Improvements 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 659.91 Existing 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 60692 Improvements 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 659.75 Existing 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 59132 Improvements 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.28 Existing 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 58544 Improvements 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 659.18 Existing 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 56688 Improvements 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 658.81 Existing 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 55117 Improvements 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 658.57 Existing 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 53976 Improvements 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 658.22 Existing 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 53465 Improvements 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 657.95 Existing 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 52343 Improvements 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 657.68 Dubuque St Existing 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 51702 Bridge Improvements 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.47 Existing 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 51556 Improvements 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 657.39 Existing 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 51341 Improvements 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 657.38 Existing 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 50946 Improvements 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.29 Existing 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 50435 Improvements 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 656.96 Existing 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 49275 Improvements 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.88 Existing 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 48218 Improvements 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.61 Existing 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 47224 Improvements 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 656.30 Existing 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 46506 Improvements 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.27 31 Table 1 50 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 32 Existing 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 45778 Improvements 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 656.21 Existing 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 45458 Improvements 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 656.09 Existing 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 -80 Bridge 45257 Improvements 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 655.94 Existing 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 44983 Improvements 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 655.76 Existing 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 44554 Improvements 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.69 Existing 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 44043 Improvements 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 655.52 Existing 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 43117 Improvements 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 655.32 Existing 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 42713 Improvements 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 654.70 Existing 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 42329 Improvements 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 654.71 Existing 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 41497 Improvements 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 654.61 Existing 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 40578 Improvements 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 654.53 Existing 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 40118 Improvements 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 654.52 Existing 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 39810 Improvements 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 654.48 Existing 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 39593 Improvements 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 Existing 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 39528 Improvements 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 Existing 651.07 651.07 651.07 651.07 651.07 651.07 651.07 651.07 39478 Improvements 651.05 651.05 651.05 651.05 651.05 651.05 651.05 651.05 Existing 651.09 651.09 651.09 651.09 651.09 651.09 651.09 651.09 39328 Improvements 651.07 651.07 651.08 651.07 651.07 651.08 651.07 651.08 Existing 650.97 650.97 650.98 650.98 650.98 650.98 650.98 650.98 39118 Improvements 650.96 650.96 650.96 650.96 650.96 650.96 650.96 650.96 Existing 650.90 650.90 650.91 650.91 650.91 650.91 650.91 650.91 38643 Improvements 650.88 650.88 650.89 650.89 650.89 650.89 650.89 650.89 Existing 650.77 650.77 650.78 650.78 650.78 650.78 650.78 650.78 37846 Improvements 650.75 650.75 650.76 650.76 650.76 650.76 650.76 650.76 Existing 650.61 650.61 650.62 650.62 650.62 650.62 650.62 650.62 37462 Improvements 650.59 650.59 650.60 650.60 650.60 650.60 650.60 650.60 Existing 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 36457 Improvements 650.36 650.36 650.36 650.36 650.36 650.36 650.36 650.36 Existing 649.96 649.96 649.97 649.96 649.96 649.97 649.97 649.97 35210 Improvements 649.94 649.94 649.94 649.94 649.94 649.94 649.94 649.94 Existing 649.86 649.86 649.86 649.86 649.86 649.86 649.86 649.86 34343 Improvements 649.84 649.84 649.84 649.84 649.84 649.84 649.84 649.84 Existing 649.83 649.83 649.83 649.83 649.83 649.83 649.83 649.83 33940 Improvements 649.80 649.80 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 Existing 649.75 649.75 649.75 649.75 649.75 649.75 649.75 649.75 33557 Improvements 649.72 649.72 649.73 649.73 649.73 649.73 649.73 649.73 Existing 649.64 649.64 649.64 649.64 649.64 649.64 649.64 649.64 33063 Improvements 649.61 649.61 649.62 649.62 649.62 649.62 649.62 649.62 32 Table 1 50 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 33 Existing 649.55 649.55 649.55 649.55 649.55 649.55 649.55 649.55 32535 Improvements 649.52 649.52 649.53 649.53 649.53 649.53 649.53 649.53 Existing 649.31 649.31 649.31 649.31 649.31 649.31 649.31 649.31 31345 Improvements 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 Existing 649.34 649.34 649.35 649.35 649.35 649.35 649.35 649.35 30940 Improvements 649.31 649.31 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 Existing 649.19 649.19 649.20 649.20 649.20 649.20 649.20 649.20 30475 US End Idyllwild Improvements 649.16 649.16 649.17 649.17 649.17 649.17 649.17 649.17 Existing 648.68 648.68 648.68 648.68 648.68 648.68 648.68 648.68 29763 Improvements 648.64 648.64 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 Existing 648.34 648.34 648.33 648.33 648.33 648.33 648.33 648.33 28770 DS End Idyllwild Improvements 648.30 648.30 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 Existing 648.40 648.40 648.40 648.40 648.40 648.40 648.40 648.40 28443 Improvements 648.36 648.36 648.36 648.36 648.36 648.36 648.36 648.36 Existing 648.35 648.35 648.35 648.35 648.35 648.35 648.35 648.35 27911 Improvements 648.30 648.30 648.30 648.30 648.30 648.30 648.30 648.30 Existing 648.09 648.09 648.09 648.09 648.09 648.09 648.09 648.09 27226 Improvements 648.04 648.04 648.04 648.04 648.04 648.04 648.04 648.04 Existing 647.98 647.98 647.98 647.98 647.98 647.98 647.98 647.98 26650 Improvements 647.93 647.93 647.93 647.93 647.93 647.93 647.93 647.93 Existing 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 647.83 Park Rd Bridge 26494 Improvements 647.79 647.79 647.79 647.79 647.79 647.79 647.79 647.79 Existing 647.70 647.70 647.70 647.70 647.70 647.70 647.70 647.70 26352 Improvements 647.72 647.72 647.72 647.72 647.72 647.72 647.72 647.72 Existing 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 25814 Improvements 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 647.58 Existing 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 25435 Improvements 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 647.47 Existing 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 25031 Improvements 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 647.33 Existing 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 24889 Improvements 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 647.28 Existing 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 24757 Improvements 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 647.23 Existing 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 24679 Improvements 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 647.12 Existing 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 24280 Improvements 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 647.02 Existing 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 24050 Improvements 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 647.00 Existing 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 23764 Improvements 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 646.86 Existing 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 23556 Improvements 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 646.79 Existing 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 23315 Improvements 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 Existing 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 23151 Improvements 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 646.67 Existing 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 23087 Improvements 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 Existing 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 22864 Improvements 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 Existing 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 22731 Improvements 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 33 Table 1 50 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 34 Existing 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 22598 Improvements 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 646.53 Existing 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 22522 Improvements 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 Existing 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 22464 Improvements 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 Existing 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 22459 Improvements 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 Existing 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 22439 Improvements 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 646.52 Existing 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 22434 Improvements 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 646.51 Existing 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 22393 Improvements 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 646.48 Existing 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 22170 Improvements 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 646.38 Existing 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 22069 Improvements 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 Existing 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 21850 Improvements 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 646.01 Existing 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 21627 Improvements 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 Existing 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 21426 Improvements 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 Existing 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 21265 Improvements 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 Burlington St Existing 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 21024 Bridge Improvements 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 645.66 Existing 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 20944 Improvements 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 645.45 Existing 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 20866 Improvements 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 645.15 Existing 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 20854 Improvements 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 645.10 Existing 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 20798 Improvements 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 643.82 Existing 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 20475 Improvements 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 Existing 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 19969 Improvements 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 643.48 Existing 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 19512 Improvements 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 643.43 Existing 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 19025 Improvements 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 643.33 Existing 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 18865 Improvements 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 Existing 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 18569 Improvements 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 643.05 Existing 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 18293 Improvements 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 643.01 Existing 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 18093 Improvements 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 642.91 Existing 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 17428 Improvements 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 642.78 34 Table 1 50 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 35 Existing 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 16633 Improvements 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 642.68 Existing 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 16452 Improvements 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 642.62 Existing 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 16158 Improvements 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 642.46 Existing 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 15887 Improvements 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 642.34 Existing 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 14870 Improvements 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 642.12 Existing 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 13901 Improvements 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 641.99 Existing 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 12509 Improvements 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 641.82 Existing 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 12427 Improvements 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 641.72 Existing 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 12291 Improvements 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 641.66 Existing 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 11056 Improvements 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 641.25 Existing 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 10087 Improvements 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 641.06 Existing 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 9664 Improvements 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 640.94 McCollister Existing 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 9491 Bridge Improvements 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 640.80 Existing 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 9369 Improvements 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 640.75 Existing 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 8971 Improvements 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 640.70 Existing 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 8021 Improvements 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 640.47 Existing 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 7574 Improvements 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 640.41 Existing 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 7237 Improvements 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 640.44 Existing 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 6893 Improvements 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 35 Table 1 100 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park & Base Condition Alt M 2B Alt M7 Alt M 8 Alt M 9A Alt M 9B Alt M 9C Alt M 9D Landmark Section Dubuque 36 Existing 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 Coralville Dam 67352 Improvements 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.42 Existing 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 67099 Improvements 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 662.36 Existing 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 66928 Improvements 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 662.39 Existing 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 66042 Improvements 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 662.25 Existing 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 65663 Improvements 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 662.16 Existing 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 65223 Improvements 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 662.08 Existing 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 64906 Improvements 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 661.93 Existing 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 64641 Improvements 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 661.75 Existing 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 63368 Improvements 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 661.48 Existing 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 61796 Improvements 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 Existing 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 60692 Improvements 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 661.09 Existing 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 59132 Improvements 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 660.75 Existing 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 58544 Improvements 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 Existing 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 56688 Improvements 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 660.26 Existing 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 55117 Improvements 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 660.06 Existing 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 53976 Improvements 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 659.71 Existing 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 53465 Improvements 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 659.44 Existing 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 52343 Improvements 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.15 Dubuque St Existing 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 51702 Bridge Improvements 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 658.94 Existing 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 51556 Improvements 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 658.84 Existing 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 51341 Improvements 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 658.83 Existing 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 50946 Improvements 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 658.73 Existing 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 50435 Improvements 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.36 Existing 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 49275 Improvements 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.26 Existing 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 48218 Improvements 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 657.97 Existing 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 47224 Improvements 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 657.63 Existing 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 46506 Improvements 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 657.61 36 Table 1 100 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park & Base Condition Alt M 2B Alt M7 Alt M 8 Alt M 9A Alt M 9B Alt M 9C Alt M 9D Landmark Section Dubuque 37 Existing 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 45778 Improvements 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 657.53 Existing 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 45458 Improvements 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 657.40 Existing 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 1 -80 Bridge 45257 Improvements 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.23 Existing 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 44983 Improvements 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 657.04 Existing 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 44554 Improvements 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.95 Existing 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 44043 Improvements 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.75 Existing 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 43117 Improvements 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 656.50 Existing 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 42713 Improvements 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.64 Existing 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 42329 Improvements 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 655.66 Existing 655.54 655.54 655.54 655.54 655.54 655.54 655.54 655.54 41497 Improvements 655.55 655.55 655.55 655.55 655.55 655.55 655.55 655.55 Existing 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 40578 Improvements 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 Existing 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 40118 Improvements 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 655.43 Existing 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 39810 Improvements 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 655.38 Existing 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 39593 Improvements 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 654.42 Existing 653.22 653.22 653.23 653.23 653.23 653.23 653.23 653.23 39528 Improvements 652.94 652.94 652.96 652.96 652.96 652.96 652.96 652.96 Existing 653.63 653.63 653.64 653.63 653.63 653.64 653.63 653.64 39478 Improvements 653.40 653.40 653.41 653.41 653.41 653.41 653.41 653.41 Existing 653.65 653.65 653.66 653.66 653.66 653.66 653.66 653.66 39328 Improvements 653.43 653.43 653.44 653.44 653.44 653.44 653.44 653.44 Existing 653.53 653.53 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 653.54 39118 Improvements 653.30 653.30 653.32 653.32 653.32 653.32 653.32 653.32 Existing 653.47 653.47 653.48 653.48 653.48 653.48 653.48 653.48 38643 Improvements 653.23 653.23 653.25 653.25 653.25 653.25 653.25 653.25 Existing 653.35 653.35 653.36 653.36 653.36 653.36 653.36 653.36 37846 Improvements 653.11 653.11 653.12 653.12 653.12 653.12 653.12 653.12 Existing 653.20 653.20 653.21 653.21 653.21 653.21 653.21 653.21 37462 Improvements 652.95 652.95 652.97 652.97 652.97 652.97 652.97 652.97 Existing 652.97 652.97 652.98 652.98 652.98 652.98 652.98 652.98 36457 Improvements 652.72 652.72 652.73 652.72 652.72 652.73 652.73 652.73 Existing 652.49 652.49 652.50 652.50 652.50 652.50 652.50 652.50 35210 Improvements 652.21 652.21 652.22 652.22 652.22 652.22 652.22 652.22 Existing 652.38 652.38 652.40 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.40 34343 Improvements 652.10 652.10 652.11 652.11 652.11 652.11 652.11 652.11 Existing 652.37 652.37 652.38 652.38 652.38 652.38 652.38 652.38 33940 Improvements 652.08 652.08 652.09 652.09 652.09 652.09 652.09 652.09 Existing 652.33 652.33 652.34 652.34 652.34 652.34 652.34 652.34 33557 Improvements 652.03 652.03 652.04 652.04 652.04 652.04 652.04 652.04 Existing 652.20 652.20 652.21 652.21 652.21 652.21 652.21 652.21 33063 Improvements 651.90 651.90 651.91 651.91 651.91 651.91 651.91 651.91 37 Table 1 100 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park & Base Condition Alt M 2B Alt M7 Alt M 8 Alt M 9A Alt M 9B Alt M 9C Alt M 9D Landmark Section Dubuque 38 Existing 652.05 652.05 652.07 652.07 652.07 652.07 652.07 652.07 32535 Improvements 651.75 651.75 651.76 651.76 651.76 651.76 651.76 651.76 Existing 651.81 651.81 651.82 651.82 651.82 651.82 651.82 651.82 31345 Improvements 651.48 651.48 651.49 651.49 651.49 651.49 651.49 651.49 Existing 651.93 651.93 651.94 651.94 651.94 651.94 651.94 651.94 30940 Improvements 651.60 651.60 651.61 651.61 651.61 651.61 651.61 651.61 Existing 651.84 651.84 651.85 651.85 651.85 651.85 651.85 651.85 30475 US End Idyllwild Improvements 651.50 651.50 651.51 651.51 651.51 651.51 651.51 651.51 Existing 651.51 651.51 651.51 651.51 651.51 651.51 651.51 651.51 29763 Improvements 651.12 651.12 651.12 651.12 651.12 651.12 651.12 651.12 Existing 651.37 651.37 651.36 651.36 651.36 651.36 651.36 651.36 28770 DS End Idyllwild Improvements 650.96 650.96 650.95 650.95 650.95 650.95 650.95 650.95 Existing 651.40 651.40 651.40 651.40 651.40 651.40 651.40 651.40 28443 Improvements 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 Existing 651.35 651.35 651.35 651.35 651.35 651.35 651.35 651.35 27911 Improvements 650.93 650.93 650.93 650.93 650.93 650.93 650.93 650.93 Existing 651.15 651.15 651.15 651.15 651.15 651.15 651.15 651.15 27226 Improvements 650.71 650.71 650.71 650.71 650.71 650.71 650.71 650.71 Existing 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 650.99 26650 Improvements 650.54 650.54 650.54 650.54 650.54 650.54 650.54 650.54 Existing 650.80 650.80 650.80 650.80 650.80 650.80 650.80 650.80 Park Rd Bridge 26494 Improvements 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 650.38 Existing 650.28 650.28 650.28 650.28 650.28 650.28 650.28 650.28 26352 Improvements 650.31 650.31 650.31 650.31 650.31 650.31 650.31 650.31 Existing 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 25814 Improvements 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 650.19 Existing 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 25435 Improvements 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 650.08 Existing 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 25031 Improvements 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 649.93 Existing 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 24889 Improvements 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 649.89 Existing 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 24757 Improvements 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 649.81 Existing 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 24679 Improvements 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 649.68 Existing 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 24280 Improvements 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 649.57 Existing 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 24050 Improvements 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 649.54 Existing 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 23764 Improvements 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 649.38 Existing 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 23556 Improvements 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 649.28 Existing 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 23315 Improvements 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 649.14 Existing 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 23151 Improvements 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 649.15 Existing 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 23087 Improvements 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 649.06 Existing 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 22864 Improvements 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 648.97 Existing 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 22731 Improvements 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 38 Table 1 100 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park & Base Condition Alt M 2B Alt M7 Alt M 8 Alt M 9A Alt M 9B Alt M 9C Alt M 9D Landmark Section Dubuque 39 Existing 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 22598 Improvements 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 648.98 Existing 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 22522 Improvements 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 Existing 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 22464 Improvements 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 Existing 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 22459 Improvements 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 Existing 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 22439 Improvements 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 648.96 Existing 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 22434 Improvements 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 648.94 Existing 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 22393 Improvements 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 648.91 Existing 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 22170 Improvements 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 648.77 Existing 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 22069 Improvements 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 648.28 Existing 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 21850 Improvements 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 648.29 Existing 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 21627 Improvements 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 648.20 Existing 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 21426 Improvements 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 648.15 Existing 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 21265 Improvements 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 647.95 Burlington St Existing 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 21024 Bridge Improvements 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 647.88 Existing 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 20944 Improvements 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 647.68 Existing 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 20866 Improvements 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 647.38 Existing 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 20854 Improvements 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 647.31 Existing 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 20798 Improvements 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 646.30 Existing 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 20475 Improvements 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 646.06 Existing 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 19969 Improvements 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 645.94 Existing 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 19512 Improvements 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 645.88 Existing 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 19025 Improvements 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 645.77 Existing 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 18865 Improvements 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 645.60 Existing 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 18569 Improvements 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 Existing 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 18293 Improvements 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 645.43 Existing 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 18093 Improvements 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 645.31 Existing 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 17428 Improvements 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 645.18 39 Table 1 100 -Year Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park & Base Condition Alt M 2B Alt M7 Alt M 8 Alt M 9A Alt M 9B Alt M 9C Alt M 9D Landmark Section Dubuque 40 Existing 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 16633 Improvements 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 Existing 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 16452 Improvements 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 644.89 Existing 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 16158 Improvements 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 644.70 Existing 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 15887 Improvements 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 644.61 Existing 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 14870 Improvements 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 644.33 Existing 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 13901 Improvements 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 644.08 Existing 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 12509 Improvements 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 643.84 Existing 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 12427 Improvements 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 Existing 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 12291 Improvements 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 643.59 Existing 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 11056 Improvements 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 643.02 Existing 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 10087 Improvements 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 642.73 Existing 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 9664 Improvements 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 642.59 McCollister Existing 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 9491 Bridge Improvements 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 642.39 Existing 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 9369 Improvements 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 642.31 Existing 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 8971 Improvements 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 642.27 Existing 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 8021 Improvements 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 641.96 Existing 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 7574 Improvements 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 641.89 Existing 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 7237 Improvements 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 641.95 Existing 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 6893 Improvements 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 641.64 40 Table 1 Landmark Cross Section park &Dubuque Base Condition Alt#2B Alt#7 Alt #8 Alt #9A Alt #9B Alt #9C Alt #9D Existing 665.97 665.97 665.98 665.98 665.98 665.98 665.98 665.98 Coralville Dam 67352 Improvements 665.92 665.92 665.92 665.92 665.92 665.92 665.92 665.92 Existing 665.90 665.90 665.90 665.91 665.91 665.91 665.90 665.90 67099 Improvements 665.85 665.85 665.85 665.85 665.85 665.85 665.85 665.85 Existing 665.91 665.91 665.91 665.91 665.91 665.91 665.91 665.91 66928 Improvements 665.85 665.85 665.85 665.86 665.86 665.86 665.85 665.85 Existing 665.73 665.73 665.73 665.73 665.73 665.73 665.73 665.73 66042 Improvements 665.67 665.67 665.67 665.68 665.68 665.68 665.67 665.67 Existing 665.64 665.64 665.64 665.64 665.64 665.64 665.64 665.64 65663 Improvements 665.58 665.58 665.58 665.59 665.59 665.58 665.58 665.58 Existing 665.56 665.56 665.56 665.57 665.57 665.57 665.56 665.56 65223 Improvements 665.50 665.50 665.50 665.51 665.51 665.51 665.50 665.50 Existing 665.39 665.39 665.39 665.39 665.39 665.39 665.39 665.39 64906 Improvements 665.33 665.33 665.33 665.33 665.33 665.33 665.33 665.33 Existing 665.18 665.18 665.18 665.18 665.18 665.18 665.18 665.18 64641 Improvements 665.12 665.12 665.12 665.12 665.12 665.12 665.12 665.12 Existing 664.91 664.91 664.91 664.91 664.91 664.91 664.91 664.91 63368 Improvements 664.84 664.84 664.84 664.85 664.85 664.85 664.84 664.84 Existing 664.66 664.66 664.66 664.66 664.66 664.66 664.66 664.66 61796 Improvements 664.59 664.59 664.59 664.59 664.59 664.59 664.59 664.59 Existing 664.58 664.58 664.58 664.58 664.58 664.58 664.58 664.58 60692 Improvements 664.50 664.50 664.50 664.51 664.51 664.51 664.50 664.50 Existing 664.41 664.41 664.41 664.42 664.42 664.42 664.41 664.41 59132 Improvements 664.34 664.34 664.34 664.34 664.34 664.34 664.34 664.34 Existing 664.35 664.35 664.35 664.36 664.36 664.35 664.35 664.35 58544 Improvements 664.27 664.27 664.27 664.28 664.28 664.28 664.27 664.27 Existing 663.96 663.96 663.96 663.96 663.96 663.96 663.96 663.96 56688 Improvements 663.87 663.87 663.87 663.88 663.88 663.87 663.87 663.87 Existing 663.82 663.82 663.82 663.83 663.83 663.83 663.82 663.82 55117 Improvements 663.74 663.74 663.74 663.74 663.74 663.74 663.74 663.74 Existing 663.52 663.52 663.52 663.52 663.52 663.52 663.52 663.52 53976 Improvements 663.42 663.42 663.42 663.43 663.43 663.43 663.42 663.42 Existing 663.26 663.26 663.26 663.26 663.26 663.26 663.26 663.26 53465 Improvements 663.16 663.16 663.16 663.16 663.16 663.16 663.16 663.16 Existing 662.94 662.94 662.94 662.95 662.95 662.95 662.94 662.94 52343 Improvements 662.84 662.84 662.84 662.85 662.85 662.84 662.84 662.84 Dubuque St Existing 662.75 662.75 662.75 662.76 662.76 662.76 662.75 662.75 51702 Bridge Improvements 662.65 662.65 662.65 662.65 662.65 662.65 662.65 662.65 Existing 662.59 662.59 662.59 662.60 662.60 662.60 662.59 662.59 51556 Improvements 662.48 662.48 662.48 662.49 662.49 662.49 662.48 662.48 Existing 662.59 662.59 662.59 662.59 662.59 662.59 662.59 662.59 51341 Improvements 662.47 662.47 662.48 662.48 662.48 662.48 662.47 662.47 Existing 662.53 662.53 662.53 662.54 662.54 662.54 662.53 662.53 50946 Improvements 662.42 662.42 662.42 662.43 662.43 662.43 662.42 662.42 Existing 662.09 662.09 662.09 662.10 662.10 662.10 662.09 662.09 50435 Improvements 661.97 661.97 661.97 661.98 661.98 661.98 661.97 661.97 Existing 662.03 662.03 662.03 662.04 662.04 662.04 662.03 662.03 49275 Improvements 661.90 661.90 661.90 661.91 661.91 661.91 661.90 661.90 Existing 661.82 661.82 661.82 661.83 661.83 661.83 661.82 661.82 48218 Improvements 661.68 661.68 661.68 661.69 661.69 661.69 661.68 661.68 Existing 661.45 661.45 661.45 661.46 661.46 661.46 661.45 661.45 47224 Improvements 661.29 661.29 661.29 661.30 661.30 661.30 661.29 661.29 Existing 661.45 661.45 661.45 661.46 661.46 661.46 661.45 661.45 46506 Improvements 661.29 661.29 661.29 661.30 661.30 661.30 661.29 661.29 Existing 661.36 661.36 661.36 661.37 661.37 661.37 661.36 661.36 45778 Improvements 661.20 661.20 661.21 661.21 661.21 661.21 661.20 661.20 41 Table 1 Landmark Cross Section park &Dubuque Base Condition Alt#2B Alt#7 Alt #8 Alt #9A Alt #9B Alt #9C Alt #9D Existing 661.19 661.19 661.19 661.20 661.20 661.20 661.19 661.19 45458 Improvements 661.03 661.03 661.03 661.04 661.04 661.04 661.03 661.03 Existing 660.99 660.99 660.99 660.99 660.99 660.99 660.99 660.99 1 -80 Bridge 45257 Improvements 660.82 660.82 660.82 660.83 660.83 660.83 660.82 660.82 Existing 660.78 660.78 660.78 660.79 660.79 660.79 660.78 660.78 44983 Improvements 660.61 660.61 660.61 660.62 660.62 660.62 660.61 660.61 Existing 660.66 660.66 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.67 660.66 660.66 44554 Improvements 660.49 660.49 660.49 660.50 660.50 660.50 660.49 660.49 Existing 660.61 660.61 660.61 660.62 660.62 660.62 660.61 660.61 44043 Improvements 660.43 660.43 660.43 660.44 660.44 660.44 660.43 660.43 Existing 660.37 660.37 660.37 660.38 660.38 660.38 660.37 660.37 43117 Improvements 660.18 660.18 660.18 660.19 660.19 660.19 660.18 660.18 Existing 659.79 659.79 659.80 659.81 659.81 659.81 659.80 659.80 42713 Improvements 659.56 659.56 659.57 659.58 659.58 659.58 659.57 659.57 Existing 659.26 659.26 659.27 659.28 659.28 659.28 659.26 659.27 42329 Improvements 659.04 659.04 659.05 659.06 659.06 659.06 659.04 659.04 Existing 659.21 659.21 659.22 659.23 659.23 659.23 659.21 659.21 41497 Improvements 658.98 658.98 658.98 659.00 659.00 658.99 658.98 658.98 Existing 659.12 659.12 659.12 659.13 659.13 659.13 659.12 659.12 40578 Improvements 658.88 658.88 658.88 658.89 658.89 658.89 658.88 658.88 Existing 659.14 659.14 659.14 659.15 659.15 659.15 659.14 659.14 40118 Improvements 658.90 658.90 658.90 658.91 658.91 658.91 658.90 658.90 Existing 659.11 659.11 659.11 659.12 659.12 659.12 659.11 659.11 39810 Improvements 658.86 658.86 658.87 658.88 658.88 658.88 658.87 658.87 Existing 658.35 658.35 658.35 658.37 658.37 658.37 658.35 658.35 39593 Improvements 658.04 658.04 658.04 658.06 658.06 658.06 658.04 658.04 Existing 658.24 658.24 658.24 658.26 658.26 658.26 658.24 658.24 39528 Improvements 657.92 657.92 657.93 657.94 657.94 657.94 657.93 657.93 Existing 658.41 658.41 658.41 658.43 658.42 658.43 658.41 658.41 39478 Improvements 658.11 658.11 658.11 658.13 658.13 658.13 658.11 658.11 Existing 658.45 658.45 658.45 658.47 658.47 658.47 658.45 658.45 39328 Improvements 658.16 658.16 658.16 658.18 658.18 658.17 658.16 658.16 Existing 658.28 658.28 658.28 658.30 658.30 658.30 658.28 658.28 39118 Improvements 657.98 657.98 657.98 658.00 658.00 658.00 657.98 657.98 Existing 658.23 658.23 658.23 658.25 658.25 658.25 658.23 658.23 38643 Improvements 657.93 657.93 657.93 657.94 657.94 657.94 657.93 657.93 Existing 658.14 658.14 658.14 658.16 658.16 658.16 658.14 658.14 37846 Improvements 657.83 657.83 657.83 657.85 657.85 657.85 657.83 657.83 Existing 658.02 658.02 658.02 658.04 658.04 658.04 658.02 658.02 37462 Improvements 657.70 657.70 657.70 657.72 657.72 657.72 657.70 657.70 Existing 657.82 657.82 657.83 657.84 657.84 657.84 657.83 657.83 36457 Improvements 657.48 657.48 657.49 657.51 657.51 657.50 657.49 657.49 Existing 657.31 657.31 657.31 657.33 657.33 657.33 657.31 657.31 35210 Improvements 656.92 656.92 656.93 656.95 656.95 656.95 656.93 656.93 Existing 657.27 657.27 657.27 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.27 657.27 34343 Improvements 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.90 656.90 656.90 656.88 656.88 Existing 657.27 657.27 657.27 657.29 657.29 657.29 657.27 657.27 33940 Improvements 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.90 656.90 656.90 656.88 656.88 Existing 657.26 657.26 657.26 657.28 657.28 657.28 657.26 657.26 33557 Improvements 656.87 656.87 656.87 656.89 656.89 656.89 656.87 656.87 Existing 657.14 657.14 657.14 657.16 657.16 657.16 657.14 657.14 33063 Improvements 656.74 656.74 656.74 656.76 656.76 656.76 656.74 656.74 Existing 656.91 656.91 656.91 656.93 656.93 656.93 656.91 656.91 32535 Improvements 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.52 656.52 656.51 656.49 656.49 Existing 656.74 656.74 656.75 656.77 656.77 656.77 656.74 656.74 31345 Improvements 656.31 656.31 656.31 656.34 656.34 656.33 656.31 656.31 Existing 656.91 656.91 656.91 656.93 656.93 656.93 656.91 656.91 30940 Improvements 656.49 656.49 656.49 656.51 656.51 656.51 656.49 656.49 Existing 656.86 656.86 656.86 656.88 656.88 656.88 656.86 656.86 30475 US End Idyllwild Improvements 656.43 656.43 656.44 656.45 656.45 656.45 656.43 656.44 42 Table 1 Cross park &Dubuque Base Condition AIt#213 AIt#7 Alt #8 AIt#9A AIt#913 AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section DS End Idyllwild Park Rd Bridge 43 Existing 656.70 656.70 656.70 656.69 656.69 656.69 656.70 656.70 29763 Improvements 656.25 656.25 656.25 656.24 656.24 656.24 656.26 656.25 Existing 656.64 656.64 656.64 656.63 656.64 656.63 656.64 656.64 28770 Improvements 656.18 656.18 656.18 656.18 656.18 656.18 656.18 656.18 Existing 656.66 656.66 656.66 656.66 656.66 656.66 656.66 656.66 28443 Improvements 656.20 656.20 656.20 656.20 656.20 656.20 656.20 656.20 Existing 656.63 656.63 656.63 656.63 656.63 656.63 656.63 656.63 27911 Improvements 656.16 656.16 656.16 656.16 656.16 656.16 656.16 656.16 Existing 656.52 656.52 656.52 656.52 656.52 656.52 656.52 656.52 27226 Improvements 656.04 656.04 656.04 656.04 656.04 656.04 656.04 656.04 Existing 656.45 656.45 656.45 656.45 656.45 656.45 656.45 656.45 26650 Improvements 655.97 655.97 655.97 655.97 655.97 655.97 655.97 655.97 Existing 656.25 656.25 656.25 656.25 656.25 656.25 656.25 656.25 26494 Improvements 655.57 655.57 655.57 655.57 655.57 655.57 655.57 655.57 Existing 655.49 655.49 655.49 655.49 655.49 655.49 655.49 655.49 26352 Improvements 655.47 655.47 655.47 655.47 655.47 655.47 655.47 655.47 Existing 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 25814 Improvements 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 655.40 Existing 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 25435 Improvements 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 655.29 Existing 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 25031 Improvements 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 Existing 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 24889 Improvements 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 655.17 Existing 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 24757 Improvements 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 655.16 Existing 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 24679 Improvements 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 655.12 Existing 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 24280 Improvements 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 654.81 Existing 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 24050 Improvements 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 654.80 Existing 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 23764 Improvements 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 654.73 Existing 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 23556 Improvements 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 654.60 Existing 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 23315 Improvements 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 654.44 Existing 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 23151 Improvements 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 654.47 Existing 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 23087 Improvements 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 654.33 Existing 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 22864 Improvements 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 654.21 Existing 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 22731 Improvements 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 654.22 Existing 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 22598 Improvements 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 654.10 Existing 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 22522 Improvements 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 Existing 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 22464 Improvements 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 Existing 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 22459 Improvements 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 Existing 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 22439 Improvements 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 Existing 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 22434 Improvements 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 653.93 Existing 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 22393 Improvements 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 653.89 43 Table 1 Landmark Cross section park &Dubuque Base Condition Alt#2B Alt#7 Alt #8 Alt #9A Alt #9B Alt #9C Alt #9D Existing 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 22170 Improvements 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 653.65 Existing 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 22069 Improvements 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 652.79 Existing 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 21850 Improvements 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 652.82 Existing 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 21627 Improvements 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 652.74 Existing 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 21426 Improvements 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 Existing 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 21265 Improvements 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 652.39 Burlington St Existing 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 21024 Bridge Improvements 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 652.31 Existing 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 20944 Improvements 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 651.87 Existing 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 20866 Improvements 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 651.55 Existing 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 20854 Improvements 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 651.47 Existing 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 20798 Improvements 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 650.74 Existing 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 20475 Improvements 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 650.53 Existing 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 19969 Improvements 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 650.43 Existing 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 19512 Improvements 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 650.37 Existing 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 19025 Improvements 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 650.22 Existing 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 18865 Improvements 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 649.99 Existing 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 18569 Improvements 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 649.92 Existing 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 18293 Improvements 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 649.87 Existing 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 18093 Improvements 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 649.36 Existing 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 17428 Improvements 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 649.33 Existing 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 16633 Improvements 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 649.32 Existing 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 16452 Improvements 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 648.65 Existing 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 16158 Improvements 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 648.22 Existing 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 15887 Improvements 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 648.18 Existing 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 14870 Improvements 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 647.86 Existing 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 13901 Improvements 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 647.39 Existing 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 12509 Improvements 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 647.04 Existing 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 12427 Improvements 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 646.75 Existing 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 12291 Improvements 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 646.60 Existing 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 11056 Improvements 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 645.73 44 Table 1 Landmark Cross section park &Dubuque Base Condition Alt#2B Alt#7 Alt #8 Alt #9A Alt #9B Alt #9C Alt #9D Existing 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 10087 Improvements 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 645.27 Existing 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 9664 Improvements 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 645.11 McCollister Existing 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 9491 Bridge Improvements 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 644.76 Existing 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 9369 Improvements 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 644.60 Existing 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 8971 Improvements 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 644.59 Existing 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 8021 Improvements 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 644.16 Existing 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 7574 Improvements 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 644.09 Existing 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 7237 Improvements 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 644.19 Existing 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 6893 Improvements 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 643.74 45 Table 1 2008 Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 46 Existing 667.80 667.80 667.80 667.80 667.80 667.80 667.80 667.80 Coralville Dam 67352 Improvements 667.77 667.77 667.77 667.77 667.77 667.77 667.77 667.77 Existing 667.72 667.72 667.72 667.73 667.73 667.73 667.72 667.72 67099 Improvements 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 Existing 667.72 667.72 667.72 667.72 667.72 667.72 667.72 667.72 66928 Improvements 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 667.69 Existing 667.46 667.46 667.46 667.46 667.46 667.46 667.46 667.46 66042 Improvements 667.42 667.42 667.42 667.43 667.43 667.43 667.42 667.42 Existing 667.35 667.35 667.35 667.35 667.35 667.35 667.35 667.35 65663 Improvements 667.31 667.31 667.31 667.31 667.31 667.31 667.31 667.31 Existing 667.25 667.25 667.25 667.25 667.25 667.25 667.25 667.25 65223 Improvements 667.21 667.21 667.21 667.21 667.21 667.21 667.21 667.21 Existing 667.01 667.01 667.01 667.01 667.01 667.01 667.01 667.01 64906 Improvements 666.97 666.97 666.97 666.98 666.98 666.98 666.97 666.97 Existing 666.73 666.73 666.73 666.74 666.74 666.74 666.73 666.73 64641 Improvements 666.69 666.69 666.69 666.69 666.69 666.69 666.69 666.69 Existing 666.37 666.37 666.37 666.37 666.37 666.37 666.37 666.37 63368 Improvements 666.32 666.32 666.32 666.32 666.32 666.32 666.32 666.32 Existing 666.01 666.01 666.01 666.02 666.02 666.02 666.01 666.01 61796 Improvements 665.97 665.97 665.97 665.97 665.97 665.97 665.97 665.97 Existing 665.93 665.93 665.93 665.93 665.93 665.93 665.93 665.93 60692 Improvements 665.88 665.88 665.88 665.88 665.88 665.88 665.88 665.88 Existing 665.75 665.75 665.75 665.75 665.75 665.75 665.75 665.75 59132 Improvements 665.70 665.70 665.70 665.70 665.70 665.70 665.70 665.70 Existing 665.67 665.67 665.67 665.67 665.67 665.67 665.67 665.67 58544 Improvements 665.62 665.62 665.62 665.62 665.62 665.62 665.62 665.62 Existing 665.11 665.11 665.11 665.11 665.11 665.11 665.11 665.11 56688 Improvements 665.05 665.05 665.05 665.05 665.05 665.05 665.05 665.05 Existing 664.96 664.96 664.96 664.97 664.97 664.97 664.96 664.96 55117 Improvements 664.90 664.90 664.90 664.90 664.90 664.90 664.90 664.90 Existing 664.56 664.56 664.56 664.56 664.56 664.56 664.56 664.56 53976 Improvements 664.50 664.50 664.50 664.50 664.50 664.50 664.50 664.50 Existing 664.21 664.21 664.21 664.21 664.21 664.21 664.21 664.21 53465 Improvements 664.14 664.14 664.14 664.14 664.14 664.14 664.14 664.14 Existing 663.77 663.77 663.77 663.78 663.78 663.78 663.77 663.77 52343 Improvements 663.70 663.70 663.70 663.70 663.70 663.70 663.70 663.70 Dubuque St Existing 663.51 663.51 663.51 663.51 663.51 663.51 663.51 663.51 51702 Bridge Improvements 663.43 663.43 663.43 663.43 663.43 663.43 663.43 663.43 Existing 663.26 663.26 663.26 663.27 663.27 663.27 663.26 663.26 51556 Improvements 663.18 663.18 663.18 663.18 663.18 663.18 663.18 663.18 Existing 663.25 663.25 663.25 663.26 663.26 663.26 663.25 663.25 51341 Improvements 663.17 663.17 663.17 663.17 663.17 663.17 663.17 663.17 Existing 663.19 663.19 663.19 663.19 663.19 663.19 663.19 663.19 50946 Improvements 663.10 663.10 663.10 663.11 663.11 663.11 663.10 663.10 Existing 662.50 662.50 662.50 662.50 662.50 662.50 662.50 662.50 50435 Improvements 662.40 662.40 662.40 662.40 662.40 662.40 662.40 662.40 Existing 662.45 662.45 662.45 662.45 662.45 662.45 662.45 662.45 49275 Improvements 662.34 662.34 662.34 662.34 662.34 662.34 662.34 662.34 Existing 662.14 662.14 662.14 662.15 662.15 662.15 662.14 662.14 48218 Improvements 662.02 662.02 662.02 662.02 662.02 662.02 662.02 662.02 Existing 661.53 661.53 661.53 661.54 661.54 661.54 661.53 661.53 47224 Improvements 661.38 661.38 661.38 661.38 661.38 661.38 661.38 661.38 Existing 661.53 661.53 661.53 661.53 661.53 661.53 661.53 661.53 46506 Improvements 661.38 661.38 661.38 661.39 661.39 661.39 661.38 661.38 46 Table 1 2008 Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 47 Existing 661.39 661.39 661.39 661.39 661.39 661.39 661.39 661.39 45778 Improvements 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 661.24 Existing 661.11 661.11 661.11 661.11 661.11 661.11 661.11 661.11 45458 Improvements 660.95 660.95 660.95 660.96 660.96 660.96 660.95 660.95 Existing 660.76 660.76 660.77 660.77 660.77 660.77 660.76 660.76 -80 Bridge 45257 Improvements 660.60 660.60 660.60 660.61 660.61 660.61 660.60 660.60 Existing 660.41 660.41 660.41 660.42 660.42 660.42 660.41 660.41 44983 Improvements 660.24 660.24 660.24 660.24 660.24 660.24 660.24 660.24 Existing 660.28 660.28 660.28 660.29 660.29 660.29 660.28 660.28 44554 Improvements 660.10 660.10 660.10 660.11 660.11 660.11 660.10 660.10 Existing 660.21 660.21 660.21 660.22 660.22 660.22 660.21 660.21 44043 Improvements 660.02 660.02 660.02 660.03 660.03 660.03 660.02 660.02 Existing 659.93 659.93 659.93 659.94 659.94 659.94 659.93 659.93 43117 Improvements 659.73 659.73 659.73 659.74 659.74 659.74 659.73 659.73 Existing 659.22 659.22 659.22 659.23 659.23 659.23 659.22 659.22 42713 Improvements 658.96 658.96 658.96 658.97 658.97 658.97 658.96 658.96 Existing 658.70 658.70 658.70 658.71 658.71 658.71 658.70 658.70 42329 Improvements 658.46 658.46 658.46 658.47 658.47 658.47 658.46 658.46 Existing 658.61 658.61 658.61 658.62 658.62 658.62 658.61 658.61 41497 Improvements 658.36 658.36 658.36 658.37 658.37 658.37 658.36 658.36 Existing 658.49 658.49 658.49 658.50 658.50 658.50 658.49 658.49 40578 Improvements 658.23 658.23 658.23 658.24 658.24 658.24 658.23 658.23 Existing 658.51 658.51 658.51 658.52 658.52 658.52 658.51 658.51 40118 Improvements 658.24 658.24 658.24 658.25 658.25 658.25 658.24 658.24 Existing 658.47 658.47 658.47 658.48 658.48 658.48 658.47 658.47 39810 Improvements 658.20 658.20 658.20 658.21 658.21 658.21 658.20 658.20 Existing 657.46 657.46 657.46 657.47 657.47 657.47 657.46 657.46 39593 Improvements 657.06 657.06 657.06 657.07 657.08 657.08 657.06 657.06 Existing 657.23 657.23 657.23 657.24 657.24 657.24 657.23 657.23 39528 Improvements 656.73 656.73 656.73 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.73 656.73 Existing 657.48 657.48 657.48 657.50 657.50 657.50 657.48 657.48 39478 Improvements 657.05 657.05 657.06 657.07 657.07 657.07 657.05 657.05 Existing 657.54 657.54 657.54 657.55 657.55 657.55 657.54 657.54 39328 Improvements 657.11 657.11 657.11 657.13 657.13 657.13 657.11 657.11 Existing 657.33 657.33 657.33 657.35 657.35 657.35 657.33 657.33 39118 Improvements 656.89 656.89 656.90 656.91 656.91 656.91 656.89 656.90 Existing 657.26 657.26 657.26 657.28 657.28 657.28 657.26 657.26 38643 Improvements 656.81 656.81 656.81 656.83 656.83 656.83 656.81 656.81 Existing 657.20 657.20 657.20 657.21 657.21 657.21 657.20 657.20 37846 Improvements 656.74 656.74 656.74 656.75 656.75 656.75 656.74 656.74 Existing 657.06 657.06 657.07 657.08 657.08 657.08 657.07 657.07 37462 Improvements 656.59 656.59 656.60 656.61 656.61 656.61 656.59 656.59 Existing 656.85 656.85 656.86 656.87 656.87 656.87 656.86 656.86 36457 Improvements 656.36 656.36 656.36 656.38 656.38 656.38 656.36 656.36 Existing 656.31 656.31 656.31 656.33 656.33 656.33 656.31 656.31 35210 Improvements 655.75 655.75 655.75 655.77 655.77 655.77 655.75 655.75 Existing 656.25 656.25 656.26 656.28 656.27 656.28 656.25 656.26 34343 Improvements 655.68 655.68 655.69 655.71 655.71 655.71 655.69 655.69 Existing 656.26 656.26 656.26 656.28 656.28 656.28 656.26 656.26 33940 Improvements 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.71 655.71 655.71 655.69 655.69 Existing 656.24 656.24 656.25 656.27 656.27 656.27 656.25 656.25 33557 Improvements 655.67 655.67 655.67 655.69 655.69 655.69 655.67 655.67 Existing 656.12 656.12 656.12 656.14 656.14 656.14 656.12 656.12 33063 Improvements 655.52 655.52 655.53 655.55 655.55 655.55 655.53 655.53 47 Table 1 2008 Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 48 Existing 655.89 655.89 655.89 655.91 655.91 655.91 655.89 655.89 32535 Improvements 655.28 655.28 655.28 655.30 655.30 655.30 655.28 655.28 Existing 655.71 655.71 655.71 655.73 655.73 655.73 655.71 655.71 31345 Improvements 655.07 655.07 655.07 655.09 655.09 655.09 655.07 655.07 Existing 655.88 655.88 655.88 655.90 655.90 655.90 655.88 655.88 30940 Improvements 655.25 655.25 655.25 655.28 655.28 655.28 655.25 655.25 Existing 655.82 655.82 655.82 655.84 655.84 655.84 655.82 655.82 30475 US End Idyllwild Improvements 655.19 655.19 655.19 655.20 655.20 655.20 655.19 655.19 Existing 655.64 655.64 655.64 655.63 655.63 655.63 655.64 655.64 29763 Improvements 654.96 654.96 654.96 654.95 654.95 654.95 654.97 654.97 Existing 655.57 655.57 655.57 655.56 655.57 655.56 655.57 655.57 28770 DS End Idyllwild Improvements 654.88 654.88 654.88 654.87 654.87 654.87 654.88 654.88 Existing 655.59 655.59 655.59 655.59 655.59 655.59 655.59 655.59 28443 Improvements 654.90 654.90 654.90 654.90 654.90 654.90 654.90 654.90 Existing 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 655.56 27911 Improvements 654.85 654.85 654.85 654.85 654.85 654.85 654.85 654.85 Existing 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 655.44 27226 Improvements 654.72 654.72 654.72 654.72 654.72 654.72 654.72 654.72 Existing 655.37 655.37 655.37 655.37 655.37 655.37 655.37 655.37 26650 Improvements 654.65 654.65 654.65 654.65 654.65 654.65 654.65 654.65 Existing 655.15 655.15 655.15 655.15 655.15 655.15 655.15 655.15 Park Rd Bridge 26494 Improvements 654.25 654.25 654.25 654.25 654.25 654.25 654.25 654.25 Existing 654.17 654.17 654.17 654.17 654.17 654.17 654.17 654.17 26352 Improvements 654.16 654.16 654.16 654.16 654.16 654.16 654.16 654.16 Existing 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 25814 Improvements 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 654.07 Existing 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 25435 Improvements 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 653.95 Existing 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 25031 Improvements 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 653.77 Existing 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 24889 Improvements 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 653.80 Existing 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 24757 Improvements 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 653.64 Existing 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 24679 Improvements 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 653.38 Existing 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 24280 Improvements 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 653.20 Existing 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 24050 Improvements 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 653.16 Existing 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 23764 Improvements 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 652.99 Existing 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 23556 Improvements 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 652.83 Existing 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 23315 Improvements 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 652.66 Existing 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 23151 Improvements 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 652.69 Existing 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 23087 Improvements 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 652.51 Existing 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 22864 Improvements 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 652.46 Existing 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 22731 Improvements 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 48 Table 1 2008 Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 49 Existing 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 22598 Improvements 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 652.42 Existing 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 22522 Improvements 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 Existing 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 22464 Improvements 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 Existing 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 22459 Improvements 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 Existing 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 22439 Improvements 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 652.35 Existing 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 22434 Improvements 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 652.33 Existing 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 22393 Improvements 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 652.28 Existing 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 22170 Improvements 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 652.06 Existing 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 22069 Improvements 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 651.27 Existing 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 21850 Improvements 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 651.29 Existing 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 21627 Improvements 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 651.19 Existing 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 21426 Improvements 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 651.13 Existing 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 21265 Improvements 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 650.81 Burlington St Existing 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 21024 Bridge Improvements 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 650.72 Existing 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 20944 Improvements 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 650.42 Existing 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 20866 Improvements 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 650.14 Existing 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 20854 Improvements 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 650.05 Existing 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 20798 Improvements 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 649.11 Existing 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 20475 Improvements 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 648.82 Existing 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 19969 Improvements 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 648.69 Existing 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 19512 Improvements 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 648.62 Existing 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 19025 Improvements 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 648.45 Existing 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 18865 Improvements 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 648.19 Existing 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 18569 Improvements 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 648.06 Existing 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 18293 Improvements 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 647.99 Existing 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 18093 Improvements 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 647.64 Existing 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 17428 Improvements 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 647.53 49 Table 1 2008 Flood Water Surface Elevations Cross Park& Base Condition AIt#2B AIt#7 AIt#8 AIt#9A AIt#9B AIt#9C AIt#9D Landmark Section Dubuque 50 Existing 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 16633 Improvements 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 647.51 Existing 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 16452 Improvements 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 646.87 Existing 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 16158 Improvements 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 646.39 Existing 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 15887 Improvements 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 646.32 Existing 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 14870 Improvements 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 645.92 Existing 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 13901 Improvements 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 645.47 Existing 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 12509 Improvements 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 645.07 Existing 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 12427 Improvements 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 644.80 Existing 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 12291 Improvements 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 644.64 Existing 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 11056 Improvements 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 643.68 Existing 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 10087 Improvements 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 643.18 Existing 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 9664 Improvements 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 642.93 McCollister Existing 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 9491 Bridge Improvements 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 642.56 Existing 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 9369 Improvements 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 642.40 Existing 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 8971 Improvements 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 642.32 Existing 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 8021 Improvements 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 641.68 Existing 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 7574 Improvements 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 641.53 Existing 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 7237 Improvements 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 641.65 Existing 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 6893 Improvements 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 640.95 50 APPENDIX B: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MEMORANDUM FOR TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ONE COMPANY Memo Many Solutions" To City of Iowa City From: HDR Engineering, Inc. Pmiect: Taft Speedway Date: January 9, 2012 HDRJobNo: 168249 RE: Environmental Review Memorandum for Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Introduction The City of Iowa City, Iowa (the City) is proposing to construct flood mitigation measures in the Taft Speedway area in Iowa City, Iowa (the Project) to protect this area from future flooding by the Iowa River. The City is preparing a feasibility study that considers several alternatives to provide varying degrees of protection from flooding. Iowa Department of Economic Development (DED) has awarded the City of Iowa City Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study. The purpose of this effort is to conduct an objective feasibility study of flood mitigation alternatives in the Taft Speedway area — generally defined as the left overbank of the Iowa River from the Elks golf course east to Dubuque Street. In January 2009, the City developed a report evaluating potential flood protection alternatives for the Idyllwild neighborhood area at the 100 -year and 500 -year flood levels per the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) (City of Iowa City, January 2009). Using this report as a starting point, the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study will evaluate the feasibility of various flood mitigation techniques and the overall impact each technique would have on the residents in the vicinity of Taft Speedway. The feasibility study includes: soliciting, reviewing, and discussing the environmental impacts of alternatives with the public; environmental studies; evaluating alternatives; and issuing a final report. Projects completed with HUD funds require a review of potential environmental impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by HUD. HUD regulations to comply with NEPA are listed at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 58.5. This memorandum documents a desktop review of environmental resources following the guidelines established in 24 CFR 58, providing an initial indication of potential environmental affects of the proposed alternatives (discussed below in Project Alternatives). The environmental review identifies resources where further coordination with Federal and state agencies would be required if the Project continues beyond the feasibility study and identifies the likely environmental documentation required for the Project if it is funded by HUD. The Project Area, defined as the area within the limits of construction of the proposed flood mitigation infrastructure, is bounded by Foster Road on the north, Taft Speedway on the south, No Name Road (also called Calibria Street) on the west, and Dubuque Street on the east. The Environmental Study Area, defined as the area potentially affected by construction of the Project (including the area affected by noise, temporary road closures or detours, changes in the water surface elevation of the 100- and 500 -year flood, and potential effects to threatened and endangered species) includes the area to the north and east of Iowa River, south of I- 80, and west of Dubuque Street. Figure 1 shows the Project Area and Environmental Study Area. Figure 2 shows an expanded view of the Project Area along with desk top - determined environmental constraints. Project Purpose The purpose of the Taft Speedway project is to provide flood protection for the Taft Speedway area and Foster Road that would cause minimal to no impact to the surrounding area. In June 2008, the City of Iowa City experienced the "flood of record" along the Iowa River, which was near the 500 -year flood per the FEMA FIS (City of Iowa City, January 2009). The Taft Speedway area was impacted by this flood, suffering significant damage to homes and condominiums, and causing residents to be evacuated from their homes. HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Doe Phone (402) 399 -1000 Page 1 of 9 Omaha NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -1111 www.hdnw win Project Alternatives Ten alternatives, including a no build alternative, were identified in the City's January 2009 report. These alternatives were screened by FIDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) for technical and political feasibility to determine the alternatives to be carried forward for further analysis. Five build alternatives were screened out as not feasible or as not meeting Project objectives, leaving five alternatives, including the no build and four build alternatives, to be carried forward for further analysis: • No Build Alternative — no permanent infrastructure improvements would be built. Temporary measures for access and property protection (such as sandbagging, temporary berms or water - filled fabric dams, or temporary pumping systems with temporary piping) would be employed. • Raise Foster Road — the profile of Foster Road would be raised to an elevation above the 500 -year flood water surface elevation (approximately 660 feet above mean sea level) to maintain access to the Peninsula area (an area north and east of the Iowa River in the vicinity of the Project area), including the Idyllwild area. The existing elevation of Foster Road in the Project Area varies from approximately 652 feet to 660 feet above mean sea level. • Levee — a levee and necessary appurtenances would be constructed. The alignment would likely follow the current alignment of Taft Speedway and No Name Road and tie into Foster Road on the west and Dubuque Street on the east. To provide protection at the 500 -year flood elevation, the levee would be constructed at approximately 660 feet above mean sea level. • Floodwall — a temporary or permanent floodwall and necessary appurtenances would be constructed to provide protection for the Idyllwild area. The alignment would likely tie into Foster Road at No Name Road on the west, Taft Speedway on the south, and Dubuque Street on the east. To provide protection at the 500 -year flood elevation, the floodwall would be constructed at approximately 660 feet above mean sea level. • Levee/Floodwall Combination — This alternative would combine the Levee and Floodwall Alternatives; constructing a levee for much of the route discussed under these alternatives. A floodwall would be constructed where the right -of -way (ROW) is constrained, and a levee would be constructed elsewhere along the alignment. Review of Environmental Resources The following sections provide a summary of the resources listed for review in 24 CFR 58.5 for CDBG projects. A. General Land Use Existing Environment Existing land uses in the Project Area include residential (the Idyllwild condominiums to the north of Taft Speedway) and the Parkview Church. Within the Study Area, large wooded acreages are located to the north of the Project Area (north of Foster Road); a mobile home park is located to the north of these acreages near Interstate 80. Elks Golf Course and several residential areas are located in the Peninsula Area to the west of the Project Area. Several single family homes are located south of the Project Area along Taft Speedway, north of the Iowa River. Terrell Mill Park is located south of the Project Area to the east of the single family homes. City Park and a residential area ( Parkview Terrace) are located south of the Iowa River. Potential Impacts The amount of land that would need to be acquired has not yet been determined for any of the alternatives. Land use impacts outside of the Project Area are not anticipated. Public opinion regarding the use of land for the proposed flood protection measures is divided. HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Have Phone (402) 399 -1000 Page 2 of 9 Omaha, NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -1111 www.hdnw win B. Important Farmland, Prime Rangeland, and Prime Forest Laud Existing Environment All of the land in and near the Project Area is committed to urban development and is not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Potential Impacts Farmland would not be impacted by the proposed flood protection measures. C. Wild and Scenic Rivers, Formerly Classified Lands, Natural Landmarks and Wilderness Areas. Existing Environment There are no wild and scenic rivers within one mile of the Project Area. There are no formally classified lands (national parks and monuments, national natural landmarks, national battlefield park sites, national historic sites and parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, national seashores, lake shores, and trails; state parks, Bureau of Land Management - administered lands, national forest and grasslands, and Native American - owned lands and leases administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs) within or near the Project Area. Terrell Mill Park, owned by the City, is adjacent to the eastern half of the southern Project Area boundary (Taft Speedway). City Park, also owned by Iowa City, is located across the Iowa River from the Project. A segment of the Iowa River Corridor Trail is located along the south side of Foster Road; the Trail continues to the west of the Project Area. Another segment of the Trail is located south of the Iowa River. Potential Impacts The proposed flood protection measures would not impact any wild and scenic rivers or other formally classified land. The No Build Alternative and Raise Foster Road Alternative would not impact Terrell Mill Park or City Park. The Raise Foster Road Alternative would temporarily affect the Iowa River Corridor Trail during construction. The Trail would be elevated and would be less vulnerable to future flooding events. The Levee, Floodwall, and Levee/Floodwall Combination Alternatives would potentially affect Terrell Mill Park during construction, but permanent impacts are not anticipated. Coordination with the City of Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department would be required if park land or trails are affected. D. Floodplains Existing Environment The majority of the Project Area is within the 100 -year floodplain. The remainder of the Project Area, with the exception of Foster Road near Laura Drive, and the intersection of Foster Road and No Name Road, is within the 500 -year floodplain (FEMA, February 16, 2007). Within the remainder of the Study Area, the 100 -year floodplain is mostly confined to within approximately 500 feet of the Iowa River. The 500 -year floodplain extends up to approximately 500 feet further landward from the river. Potential Impacts The proposed flood protection measures vary in the degree of protection that they would provide. The No Build Alternative would protect Foster Road, Idyllwild, Taft residents, and Parkview Church from a 100 -year flood with the use of temporary measures if there is adequate response time. The No Build Alternative would not provide any protection for an event similar to the 2008 flood event, or a 500 -year flood. The Raise Foster Road Alternative would protect access on Foster Road for a 100 -year flood, an event similar to the 2008 flood event, and a 500 -year flood. Temporary measures employed under this alternative would protect Idyllwild and Parkview Church during a 100 -year flood, but would not provide protection for residents along Taft Speedway. Under this alternative, there would not be any protection for Idyllwild, HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Have Phone (402) 399 -1000 Page 3 of 9 Omaha, NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -1111 www.hdnw win residents along Taft Speedway, and Parkview Church from an event similar to the 2008 flood event, or a 500 - year flood. The Levee Alternative would provide protection for Foster Road, Idyllwild, and Parkview Church from a 100 -year flood, an event similar to the 2008 flood event, and a 500 -year flood. This alternative would not protect Taft residents from any of these scenarios. Both the Floodwall and the Levee/Floodwall Combination Alternatives would provide the same protection as the Levee Alternative. The levee, floodwall, or a combination of these measures would potentially raise the water surface elevation of the Iowa River 100 -year floodplain by approximately 0.03 feet, and raise the water surface elevation of the Iowa River 500 -year floodplain by approximately 0.05 feet. This increase in the water surface elevation would not have an appreciable affect on the extent of land outside of the protected area potentially affected by a flood event. Interior drainage (drainage to the north of the flood protection structure), underseepage of water from flooded areas to non - flooded areas, and space constraints to construct flood protection structures are issues that would be addressed in future design and environmental documents. A floodplain development permit from the City would be required for construction of a levee, floodwall, or a combination levee and floodwall. Public notices of a proposed Project within a floodplain and potential impacts to the floodplain, as required by 24 CFR 55, would be published as part of the environmental documentation process. E. Wetlands Existing Environment Based on National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), five areas of wetlands occur in and near the Project Area: an area of riverine wetlands along the Iowa River to the south of the Project Area, an area of palustrine emergent wetlands to the south of Taft Speedway west of Dubuque Street, an area of palustrine forested wetlands south of Taft Speedway (to the south of Parkview Church), and two areas of freshwater pond wetlands in Idyllwild (USFW S, November 7, 2011). Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect wetlands. Based on (NWI) maps, the area of palustrine emergent wetlands are within approximately 10 to 20 feet of the proposed levee location and within approximately 30 to 40 feet of the proposed floodwall location. The palustrine forested and freshwater pond wetlands are located within approximately 40 to 50 feet of proposed levee or floodwall locations. Locations of these wetlands based on NWI mapping are approximate. Wetland delineations would be required to determine the presence and extent of wetlands within and near the Project Area. Avoidance of wetlands by the levee, floodwall, and levee /floodwall alternatives would be preferable. If avoidance of wetlands is not practicable, a Section 404 wetland permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would likely be required. It is unknown at this time if a nationwide permit or an individual permit would be needed. As part of the permit process, Iowa DNR would need to consider water quality impacts and certify construction of the Project. If wetlands would be impacted by the Project, public notices, as required by 24 CFR 55, would be published. F. Cultural Resources, Historical and Archaeological Existing Environment A review of information (topographic maps from 1930 and 1950, a map of potential for archaeological sites, and a landform sediment assemblage from existing background data) provided by the Iowa LIED State Historic Preservation Office liaison reveals that there are no known historic or archaeological sites within or near the Project Area. The potential for encountering archaeological sites during excavation or earthwork is HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Have Phone (402) 3991000 Page 4oi9 Omaha NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -1111 www.hdnw win low. Archaeological surveys may be required, but further coordination with the Iowa Department of Economic Development State Historic Preservation Office liaison would be completed during the environmental documentation process to determine the extent of surveys and other data, such as soil testing, needed. Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect historic or archaeological resources. All four of the build alternatives would have the potential to affect potential archaeological resources. Further coordination with the Iowa Department of Economic Development State Historic Preservation Office liaison would be completed during the environmental documentation process. Limited soil tests could also be completed to help determine the likelihood of encountering unknown archaeological resources. G. Biological Resources Critical Habitat or Endangered/Threatened Species Act Existing Environment USFW S lists one endangered species (the Indiana bat), three threatened species (western prairie fringed orchid, eastern prairie fringed orchid, and prairie bush clover), and one candidate species (Eastern Massasauga rattlesnake) as occurring in Johnson County (USFWS, October 25, 2011). Habitat conditions adjacent to the Project Area are generally favorable for Indiana bat, western prairie fringed orchid, eastern prairie fringed orchid, and Eastern Massasauga rattlesnake. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lists 70 state - protected species as potentially occurring in Johnson County (including the Federally - protected species) (Iowa DNR, not dated). Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect Federal or state- protected species in the Project Area. All four of the build alternatives would have the potential to affect protected species. Coordination with USFW S and Iowa DNR would be required during the environmental documentation process. H. Water Supply & Quality & Groundwater Existing Environment The Iowa River is located approximately 250 to 1,000 feet south of the Project Area. An unnamed intermittent stream flows south and southwest within the Project Area near its eastern edge. The Iowa City Water Purification Plant is located approximately 2 river miles upstream of the Project Area. Groundwater is approximately 10 to 100 feet below the ground surface in the Project Area with shallower groundwater depths are near the Iowa River (Iowa DNR, not dated). Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not increase water supply use, affect the Iowa City's water supply, or affect groundwater in the Project Area. The build alternatives would not increase water supply use or the Iowa City's water supply, and would not likely encounter groundwater in the Project Area (any excavation required would not likely reach the depth of groundwater) and post - construction mounding of groundwater near the levee or floodwall would not be anticipated to cause any adverse affects. I. Coastal Zone Management Area & Coastal Barrier Resources System Coastal zone management areas and coastal barrier resources are not found within or near the Project Area. HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Have Phone (402) 399 -1000 Page 5 of 9 Omaha, NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -1111 www.hdnw win J. Storm Water Existing Environment Existing storm water drainage is accomplished by gravity flow along Foster Road and towards the Iowa River via inlets, storm pipes, and drainage ditches with culverts. Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect storm water drainage. Raising Foster Road would require adjusting the existing storm water system along Foster Road to the increased elevation of the road. Construction of the levee, floodwall, or levee /floodwall alternatives would require adding a pumping system to move water from the interior side of the proposed flood protection to the Iowa River. Construction of any of the build alternatives would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and a storm water pollution prevention plan. K Waste Water Existing Environment The existing sanitary sewer system in the Project Area consists of a trunk line along Taft Speedway (south of Taft Speedway east of Idyllwild and north of Taft Speedway in Idyllwild), and lateral lines in Idyllwild and along Foster Road from Dubuque Street to Laura Drive. Potential Impacts It is not anticipated that any of the alternatives would affect the sanitary sewer system. L. Surface Water Existing Environment An unnamed intermittent stream flows south and southwest within the Project Area near its eastern edge. Two freshwater ponds are located within the Idyllwild area. The Iowa River is located approximately 250 to 1,000 feet south of the Project Area. There are no impaired streams within or near the Project Area. Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect surface water in the Project Area. It is not anticipated that any of the build alternatives would affect surface water, unless the selected build alternative would follow a path substantially east of No Name Road or north of Taft Speedway. In this case, one of the freshwater ponds within the Idyllwild could be affected. Construction of a levee or floodwall would not affect the intermittent stream near Dubuque Road (the stream would be avoided). M. Socio- Economic Information/ Environmental Justice Issues Existing Environment The Project Area consists of a mix of residential development including multi - family housing units and Parkview Church. Several single family homes are located to the south of the Project Area along Taft Speedway, and north of the Project Area along Foster Road. West and north of the Project Area, residential development is low density, with the exception of a mobile home park to the north near Interstate 80 and a residential area approximately 0.8 miles west of the Project Area. Several single family homes are located south of the Project Area along Taft Speedway. Access to and from the Study Area north of the Iowa River is limited to Taft Speedway and Foster Road. Generally, the Study Area population is more ethnically diverse than Iowa City. The percentage of the population identifying themselves as Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander is lower than the percentage within Iowa City. The percentage of the Study Area population identifying themselves as "Some Other Race" and "Two HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Have Phone (402) 3991000 Page 6oi9 Omaha, NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -1111 www.hdnw win or more Races" is higher than Iowa City. The percentage of the Study Area population identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino is substantially', higher than Iowa City, but the population that is linguistically isolated (does not speak English well) is lower than the percentage within Iowa City. The Hispanic or Latino population within the Study Area resides mainly to the north of the Project Area. The percentage of the population with income below the poverty level is slightly, but not substantially higher than Iowa City (US Census, August 25, 2011; US Census, November 11, 2011 a; US Census, November 11, 2011b). Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect land use or housing in the Project Area. Substantial changes to land use from the build alternatives are not anticipated. The impact of the build alternatives would depend upon the location selected for constructing the proposed flood protection measures. If the proposed levee, floodwall, or levee /floodwall combination are constructed along No Name Road, Taft Speedway and west of Dubuque Road, it is anticipated that residences would not need to be acquired. If any of the build alternatives would follow a path substantially east of No Name Road or north of Taft Speedway, residences would need to be acquired. Temporary road or lane closures would affect all residents within the Study Area equally. None of the alternatives are anticipated to affect employment in the Project Area, other than a slight temporary increase in construction employment with construction of any of the build alternatives. Access to the area by emergency personnel would not change with the No Build Alternative, but is anticipated to improve with any of the build alternatives. The residents in the area protected by a levee or floodwall would benefit by a reduced risk of flooding. All residents in the Project Area, to the north of Foster Road, and in the Peninsula area to the west of the Project Area would benefit by a reduced risk of flooding of Foster Road, maintaining access for residents and emergency services. A substantial racial and minority population was identified; if the proposed Project would have, or be perceived to have, disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects to the community, further analysis to document these effects would be needed. If disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects are identified, mitigation measures to reduce the impacts would be required. N. Air Quality Existing Environment Johnson County is currently in attainment for all criteria pollutants (EPA, August 30, 2011). Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect air quality in the Project Area. Construction of any of the build alternatives would generate minor amounts of emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust from soil disturbance. Impacts to air quality would be slight; no air quality standards would be exceeded. O. Transportation Existing Environment Dubuque Street, a four -lane divided road, is located at the east end of the Project Area. Foster Road, No Name Road, and Taft Speedway, bounding the north, west, and south edges of the Project Area, respectively, are two lane roads. Foster Road extends to the west of the Project Area and provides access to the Peninsula neighborhood. The Iowa River Corridor Trail runs along Dubuque Street and Foster Road within the Project Area. Iowa City Municipal Airport is located approximately 2.4 miles south of the Project Area. ' Census block groups and blocks were determined to contain "substantial" EJ populations if any of the EJ populations exhibited concentrations that were at least 40 percent higher than the City's percentage of the same EJ population, based on an assumption that 40 percent above the mean (approximately one standard deviation) is substantial. HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Have Phone (402) 3991000 Page 7oi9 Omaha, NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -1111 www.hdnw win Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect the road network, the Iowa River Corridor Trail, or the Iowa City Municipal Airport. All of the build alternatives would temporarily affect roads within the Project Area and the Iowa River Corridor Trail. As Project design progresses, the environmental document would assess the details of potential detours during construction. The post - construction road and trail network would be identical to the pre - construction network. The Project is not anticipated to affect airspace at the Iowa City Municipal Airport; however, in accordance with 14 CFR 77, the construction contractor would need to use the Notice Criteria Tool available at httns:// oeaaa. faa.gov /oeaaa/extemal /nortal.isp to determine if construction equipment would potentially obstruct airspace at the Airport. P. Noise Existing Environment The Project Area is a typical urban residential environment. Parkview Church is located in the eastern half of the Project Area. Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect noise levels experienced by residents or Parkview Church. No unacceptable noise levels would be generated by construction of the build alternatives. Noise generated by construction equipment and occasional operation of the emergency generator would be short term and intermittent. Post - construction noise levels would be identical to pre - construction levels. Q. Hazardous Waste Existing Environment There are no documented hazardous materials or waste sites in the Project Area (EPA, November 23, 2011). The closest documented site is a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) in City Park approximately 1,500 feet to the south of the Project Area. The LUST was removed in 1991, site cleanup started in 1993, and the site was closed with no further action required in 2002 (Iowa DNR, not dated). A Brownfields site located approximately 1 mile west of the Project Area was closed with no further action required in 2007 because all contaminants were below statewide standards (Iowa DNR, May 15, 2007). Potential Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect hazardous material or waste sites in the Project Area. The build alternatives would not affect any known hazardous materials or waste sites. Summary The Project has the potential to affect floodplains, wetlands, cultural (archaeological) resources, threatened and endangered species, storm water drainage, and transportation resources. The Project would not qualify as a categorical exclusion (excluded activities are listed in 24 CFR 58.34 and 58.35). Based on current knowledge, the Project should not require an environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with 24 CFR 58.37. Therefore, in accordance with 24 CFR 58.36, an environmental assessment would need to be completed before CDBG funds could be released for construction of the Project. If a significant impact to the human environment is identified during the environmental assessment process, an EIS would be required. The environmental review process, as outlined in Iowa DED's CDBG Management Guide, Appendix 2, Environmental Review, would be followed. This includes determination of the level of environmental review, the appropriate environmental documentation based on this review, all public notices required, and the required forms for compliance with applicable regulations and release of funds from Iowa DED. HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Have Phone (402) 399 -1000 Page 8 of 9 Omaha, NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -1111 www.hdnw win References: City of Iowa City. January 2009. Iowa City River Corridor Flood Protection Options for Parkview Terrace and Idyllwild Neighborhoods. EPA. November 23, 2011. Envirofacts Multisystem Search and Brownfields Sites Search. http: / /www.el)a.gov /enviro /facts /gmr.html #envirofacts. Accessed November 23, 2011. FEMA. February 16, 2007. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 19103C0195E. http: / /msc.fema. gov /webal)p /wcs /stores /servlet/info ?storeId -10001 &catalogId –l0001 &langId— 1 &content= firmetteHelp A &title– FIRMettes Iowa DNR. Not dated. Facility Explorer. Environmental Facilities. httl)s:Hfacilityexplorer.iowadnr.gov/facilityexplorer/ Iowa DNR. May 15, 2007. Letter regarding Wissink Property Brownfields Site. http s: //facility explorer.iowadnr.gov /facility explorer/ SiteDetail. aspx ?facID- 3113955 92 Iowa DNR Geological Survey. Not dated. Water Wells by Township, Range,a nd Section for Johnson County. http: // www .igsb.uiowa.edu /webapps /geosam /scripts /framel.asn ?county= JOHNSON U.S. Census Bureau. November 201 la. American Community Survey 2005 to 2009. Table: B16002 – Household Language by Linguistic Isolation. http: // factfinder. census. gov /s ervlet/Datas etMainPag eServlet ?_program= ACS &_submenuld =data sets _2 &_lang =en U.S. Census Bureau. November 201 lb. American Community Survey 2005 to 2009. Table: C17002 – Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months - Universe: Population for whom Poverty Status is Determined. http:/ /factfinder. census. gov /servlet/DatasetMainPageServiet? program =ACS& submenuld –data sets 2& lang =en U.S. Census Bureau. August 25, 2011. 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P3, Race, and Table P4, Hispanic or Latino Origin. http: / /factfinder2.census.gov /faces /nav /isf/,)ages /index.xhtml USFWS. November 7, 2011. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. htti)://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mal)per.html USFWS. October 25, 2011. Endangered Species, Iowa, County Distribution of Federally Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species for Johnson County. http: / /www.fws .gov /midwest/endangered /lists /iowa cty.html HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Dme Phone (402) 399 -1000 Page 9 of 9 Omaha, NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -1111 www.hdnw win This Page Intentionally Left Blank 'd 'Q CC o Ra 1 4 ryeliday Rd Iowa City a •l Water Purification Plant rc O y Srb t SI L r 71h 51 � e Srh Sf spark Rd ei It 0 3 q6 Lime. Rd Nr C4 a b j Elks L=9 Country Club o` '0a bA 0 -larkview Peninsula 4, +6 Terrace Area 10 w Park Rd 0 e 4,000 2,000 0 4,000 Feet Scale Kyle Q, NS dt R, u a� r nP o o V li u a n ✓� Rlver 51 `c _a Z y, - `_t z v z C H Itl^ Rtl z z v aK'k /na € J411crry ^n 51 4 Finkhi ne r LIn •. en•h S •' IeWG Ave Gy end n4e Rd 9� r^ a' West Lucas .. 6 Ia.n � Iowa city � fO Mllnlclpal ° Airport 4 k Sap [1pskY dr PaPAe Nr CaPlornia Ave u 9 V4 Legend Mo,a,on Ttek Blvd Q Study Area Boundary Johnson County, Iowa Q Project Area Boundary Location Map DATE January 2012 RGURE Iowa City, Iowa t Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Alternatives Study bon on ova Jowa city _! _ o ° Uhiv ersi ty Heights - t g m � a r d Bowery 8S E .61 1 N W Senior 81 � y i Klrkwood Ave u East L , a V Friendly Ave J eh Or ` Hr9hland Ave o a g 10 { {k 1 I Oeloreet Ave s 9� r^ a' West Lucas .. 6 Ia.n � Iowa city � fO Mllnlclpal ° Airport 4 k Sap [1pskY dr PaPAe Nr CaPlornia Ave u 9 V4 Legend Mo,a,on Ttek Blvd Q Study Area Boundary Johnson County, Iowa Q Project Area Boundary Location Map DATE January 2012 RGURE Iowa City, Iowa t Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Alternatives Study { ^ ° \\ \ > »• \ ( ( \ \\\\ $ �\ * \) / _ i) \ r ` ). - 0 � \ f « \ y § d / - �\ \ m/ } 2 / }ON \� } \� © l LL 0 co- - - \ ) ) / APPENDIX C: TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY PROJECT RENDERING AND FLOODWALL AESTHETIC TREATMENT EXAMPLES PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 3 a o r Example of Floodwall Aesthetic Treatment (Grand Fork, MN) Example of Floodwall Aesthetic Treatment (Lincoln, NE) Example of Floodwall Aesthetic Treatment (Moorhead, MN) Example of Floodwall Aesthetic Treatment (Winona, OH) APPENDIX D: TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT Taft Speedway Flood Study Iowa City, Iowa TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD STUDY lay 2012 Prepared for: Iowa City, Iowa Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. fal TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... ............................... 7 2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ..................................................................... ..............................1 2.1 Field Exploration ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 1 2.2 Laboratory Testing------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 1 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................... ..............................2 3.1 Soils and Bedrock--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------2 3.2 Groundwater----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------2 4.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................... ..............................2 At LIST OF FIGURES (Following Text) 1 Project and Boring Location Map LIST OF A A Boring Logs B Laboratory Testing Geotechnical Data Report Taft Speedway Flood Study i May 2012 Iowa City, Iowa GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD STUDY IOWA CITY, IOWA Ii I1Y1C1619149b 11 GL` This Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) presents the results of the subsurface investigation and laboratory material testing performed at the site of the proposed Taft Speedway Flood Study. This report was prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. for Iowa City, Iowa. A project location map is included as Figure 1. The intent of the project is to evaluate flood control alternatives to provide protection at the 100 -year and 500 -year flood elevations, which correspond to elevations 654 and 660 feet, respectively. To provide protection against the 500 -year flood, the protection would have to be about 9 to 16 feet above existing grade across the site. This investigation was performed to investigate the geologic impact on the feasibility of potentially constructing flood risk i floodwalls at the site. 2.0 2.1 The field work for the project consis penetrometer tests. Ten borings were shown on the boring logs. Each borinc The approximate locatioi included in Attachment A. The borings hollow stem Urbandale, geotechnical at the site and to evaluate their ructures like earthen levees and exploratory test borings and 3 cone oad and Taft Speedway to the depths sal on bedrock. of the boring logs are ial B -57 drill rig equipped with 325 -inch ed by Geotechnical Services, Inc. (GSI) professional civil engineer specializing ID of in Soil samples from the auglIvAgriarlwere obtained using push and drive sampling at intervals shown on the boring logs. RecoveredWples were sealed in glass jar containers, labeled, and protected for transportation to the laboratory or testing. Split- barrel samples, designated "S samples, were obtained while performing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) with a thick walled sampler, 1.5 -inch inside diameter, driven in general accordance with ASTM D1586 -84, 'Penetration Test and Split - Barrel Sampling of Soils." The N- value, reported in blows per foot, represents the number of blows required to drive the sampler over the last 12 inches of the sample interval. The field boring logs were prepared in general accordance with ASTM D2488 -84, "Description of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure)." Stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. Water level readings were made in the drill holes at times and under conditions stated on the boring logs. 2.2 Laboratory Testing The field boring logs were reviewed to outline the depths, thicknesses, and lateral extent of the various soil strata. A testing program was established to evaluate the engineering properties of the recovered samples and to substantiate the soil classifications made in the field. All tests were conducted in general Geotechnical Data Report Taft Speedway Flood Study 1 May 2012 Iowa City, Iowa accordance with current ASTM or state -of- the - practice test procedures. Laboratory test results are presented in Attachment B of this report. The foundation soils were tested to determine moisture content, dry density, plasticity indexes, grain size, consolidation and shear strength (unconsolidated undrained and consolidated undrained triaxial tests) properties. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Soils and Bedrock The subgrade was generally described as alluvium consisting of a silty and sandy lean clay surficial blanket ranging from 1.5 to over 20 feet in thickness. The underlying sand was generally described as loose to medium dense silty fine to medium sand with interbedded clay seams down to the layer's termination at bedrock. The total thickness of this silty sand layer wa bout 0 to 24 feet. The bedrock was generally described as Pennsylvanian limestone and was enco red at depths ranging from 21 to 42 feet. It should be noted that the thinnest section of surficial eclayn et was ted ad jacent to the lake that parallels Taft Speedway (near Borings B -3, B 4 and o, the pe silty sand layer was not present at the easternmost boring (B -10) and clay extre surface bedrock at about 21 feet below existing ground surface. 3.2 Groundwater ` Groundwater was encountered at the depths d don the boring logs (Attachment A). Groundwater was generally present at depths varyi om about 9 to 15 feet below existing ground. This corresponds to El- 633 to 639 feet. Fluctuations in the level of the gr dwater may occu ue to seasonal variations in precipitation and other factors not evident at the ti measurer 4.0 LIMITATIONS This GDR presents g chnical dat rom the preliminary field investigation, laboratory testing of specific samples at the locations indicated d a description of subsurface conditions using the methods and sources described in this report. It s been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill for this type of project within this geographical area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The data presented herein are based on field reconnaissance, research and available literature, and the results of field exploration and laboratory materials testing by others. Geotechnical engineering and the geologic sciences are characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgments presented herein are based partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, partly on our general experience and the state -of- the - practice at the time of this evaluation. Geotechnical Data Report Taft Speedway Flood Study 2 May 2012 Iowa City, Iowa o �o m LL i LL L y I A > \� j J � B ATTACHMENT A: Boring Logs HDR Engineering, Inc. 8408 Indian Hills Ddve Phone (402) 39 9L1000 Omaha, NE 68114 Fax (402) 39 9-4979 v .hdrinc.com BORING LOG No. TB-1 LOCATIOX-QlF'BPPJAl - DRIL ER ll .... .. TB-1 Offset 6 West Exating Surface WA DAH JLH WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 14'6" 10, i As halt Sl(leg 31/4 -inch Hollow Stem AQpr6 Mobile B 41'7" SAMPLE DATA SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY DATA PP=0.5 PP=1.0 PP=.75 is 11 9 19 16" 10, ly, jor. 10, ell Asphaltic Cement Cowate PAVEMENT FILL 26 28 92 97 77.7 95.3 90.3 311 69.9 32.4 311 31.4 153 13.1 18.3 CL Brown and graymixed. Moist Medium sIlff, SANDY LEAN CLAY ALLUVIUM Sur Ul 6 U2 12 Gray and brown mill l 110 very moist, Merli n, at LEAN CLAY with sand SOIL r ALLUVIUM — Dark gray. Very molsl, Medium sli it VERY SANDY LEAN CLAi < A LLL V I l 2001. CL C IL U3 U4 t: ... V M ;M MW Brawn and QW kl I SILTY FINE dn Clay Jay Beams below 27 fast LIghtgraylimestomebedrolckinsamplaSO ALLUVIUM SM 24 S5 10 SB S7 Sa GSIGeotechnical Scrvices, Inc. 611S)270-6542 FAX1515)270-11911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2/16/12 BORING LOG No. TS-2 L0 W - 7i t. 7M 1 ; .DRILLER: TB-2 Offset 1MM & 15' East eM! Surface N/A DAH JLH WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 'i M �r Asp hail Slreaf Mobile B-57 3 1/4-inch Hollow Slam Augers 12' 12'6" SAMPLE DATA SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY DATA aaa M ,, .Asphaltic Cement Corl r PAVEMENT IlLL ti 16 105 PP=c' 4 4 7 6 6 13 5011" 161, iz, 16" 16.1 16" 1a" 16. 14.2 49.6 83.3 21.1 8.3 CL SM M: 4 � : Brawn, Moist, 2_0L VERY SANDY LEAN CLAY V ALLUVIUM _F Ul i ... Brown, Moist. Loom, SILTY FINE SAND 'Sand in bol of Ul Gray very sandy lean clay seam below 7 feet F urface ALLUVIUM 2.0%— a 62 S3 12 111: Brown, Wet Loom to medium dense, medium don SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND Brown and gray mixed balls, RY ALLUVIUM 22 In- SM 24 Bi� III aflallln. Wall Lot SIL- Light FINE SANG 4 18' ALLUVIUM ------- — 27,01 Liquibrown Very Mold, Medium s' SANDY U _AY interbedded with fine silty sand ALLUVIUM 320- SC CL S7 O=gMh-bMWl Wet. kfal dense, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND ..... Light gray limestone bedrock in sample 39 ALLUVIUM 50"M Of Elating a 36.08' SM so 42 1b Geotechnical GSIServices, Inc. I0807 Aurora Avlmr., Urborlcltll. 1." 50322 (6161270 -6542 FAX151512704911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2/16/12 BORING LOG No. TB -3 NO. '.-I ..: LOOATIO 'OF_$ORI.O -: ' --' r ",;:DATUM - - DRILLEit -:...' :.._LOGGER_ TF Offset 5' Soulh & 5' East 6daling Surface WA DAH JLH WATERLEVEL OBSERVATIONS i -,: '11✓�'�' xujt 5, rd .e r y "L'S +','C As belt Stf08t iy vY.{ ):r Mpblle B-57 ..TOT. '..E. 1116" 11'6" Backfilled 31/4 -Inch Hollow Stem Augers 32'1" SAMPLED0.TA SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY DATA % � R9Phaillic Cement Connate F-01 PAVEMENT tt Pl W"2[ 41.5 08.0 34.0 h 15.6 26,6 19.7 Mg ih NP 12.2 4.0 PP =1.5 2 3 pp =0` 11 13 8 18 Sum, 14" 18" 18" 18" 18" 12" 16" V GL SM SM SCSM SM Brawn, Moist r2 D' 15ANOY LEAN CLAY ` ALWVBIM U1 Brawn, MoIsL Loose, VERY SILTY FINE SAND Very sandy lean d ow ay seams bel 7 feet ALLUVIUM 2.0' mum and gray M "d, Wet, Medium Cen59, •. SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND interbedded v.. zy i sandylsan clay 'Sand in bottom of U4 SOIL L No ALL 8 52 83 19 U4 S5 a S6 24 — S7 With light brown silty lean clay Y' 1S" ALLUVIUM 7.0' k Medium dense, =SAND LSILV tone bedrock M sample SO ALLUVIU i Sa sn eorypm o f Baring i 32.08' 49 GSIGeotechnical Services, Inc. 10601 "ram Avenue, Urbandale, Iowa 60022 (515)x70.6542 FAX(515)270 -1911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2/16/12 BORING LOG No. TB4 BORINOi Iqo. 1. LOCATION.OR7 6. T10 DATUM. ,l. 1Exdsting DRILUER: LOGGER T13-4 Offset 6 South Surface N/A DAH JLH WATER P LEMELOBSERVATI� ON,.S 'DR IL' -- BO Street ,. IM : Mobile B-57 - " T0. -: sa 9' 9'6' Baakfilled 31/4 -inch Hallow Stem Aagera 32'2" I SAMPLE DATA SOIL DESCRIPTION L490RATORY DATA 4 7 8 3 17 13 5012" 16" 18" 16" S' 14" 18" 112" %ASPHALTIC CEMENT CONCRETES PAVEMENT SM CL SP 15.7 80.9 1.4 9.6 NV 32.9 NP 17.7 . Brown to dark brown, Damp to moist, Loose, VERY SILTY FINE SAND ALLUVIUM 70 Brown and gray mil Very moist, Medium aprr, SILTY LEAN CLAY 6• ALLUVIUM 51 S2 - 'r Brown and gray mixed, Wei. Loose, POORLY GRADED SAND Surface Gray below 12 feet 16" aR Vito 2 S3 54 24 S5 ..I, '4T d .I x.L i( i } 'r Ofa t>rbrawn, Wet, Mad'wm rose, `RLN . W D'-- -'Mn with silt 7 18" "'Jim rici n clay seams below 27 feet gral, limeslone bedrock in sample 87 ALLUVIUM 31.1' SP -SM 56 3n Badom of Baring (0- 31.06' 38 42 rN GSIGeotechnieal Servioear Inc. IM7 Aurora Avenue, UrberWale, Iowa MU 1616)2706642 FAX (6161270 -1911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2/16/12 BORING LOG No. TB -5 _ BORING- NO::40CATION.CF BORING jr ELEVATION. JA.UM _ DRILLER .' - -:. IC a0 TB -5 Offset 5' South R 1' West E7dsting Suffl,, N/A DAH JLH WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS T.M. ti iLuN btatLLIN6:; A', < ,., ..3 x -',•e, Asphalt Slfael t1Rr° • "A• Mobile B57 TH L r 12' 10' Backfilled 31 /4•Inch H0110w Stem Augers 361" ++ SAMPLE D I 60I1LDE91CRIPT {ON LABORATORY DATA Y rcrc gt 18" 14" 18" 15" 14'. 18" 18" 18" 1" rw� P.nY.. It . } k➢ l .G +t . .� ... .... �. 11. 3 PP =.75 4 6 8 15 S 9 5071" ASPHALTIC CEMENT CONCRETE .5 PAVEMENT CL 20 103 61.2 82.1 3.0 49.6 55.5 253 29.2 92 11.9 s .�' F� .: .i Dark brown. (lamp to mWst, Soft. SANDY LEAN CLAY interbedded with very silty fine sand seams ALLUVIUM 10.0 Brown, wet, Loose to medium dense, VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND with gray sand Is... Surface clay seams ALLUVIUM 17.0' Medlumtodarkbawm, We' tncy4ndanso , POORLY GRADED S AND 9" AL M 22,0 S1 6 U2 S3 +� S4 1A •• SP S5 58 24 Brown, W� Loose to me/8um i SILTY P =.75 OA" O In .decided with gray rust mettle, an wdr B 1w, Light gray limestone bedrock in sample S9 ALLUVIUM a.3 Bosom of Boring 0 38.08' SM S7 in SS 36 47 GSIGeotechnicat Services° Inc, 10907Aurora Avenv% UrS dale, Iowa 50322 (515) 270 -6542 FAX(519)2704911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2/16/12 BORING LOG No. TB -6 p,'NO: -. . LOCATION OFBORINC4 ATION. - 4Exlednp `- DATUM' DRILLER . LOGGER TB -6 Offset 45'Eas[ &12'South Sudaca WA DAH JLH WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS :...TYPE'0F -9UR ACE, RO.LRIO. - gyI�ILE, QNLi 4F'. Dill D.i If'AiLI; NO 24 HOURS - AKYeRbRIL1.1rIG As is Steel Moblle B -57 - - C 1N T4YYAL:DEPTN.- 1p' g'g" Backfilled 31/4 -inch Hollow Stem Augers 32'1" SAMPLE DATA SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY DATA 1 $' cv wa i c : CjOLOR. !. h• ' 4'i t ;�4 w t 9�pa Ae LL of PP =O" 6 4 12 2 10 21 -- - 15" 16" 16" 16" 10" 14" 1 3' ASPHALTIC CEMENT CONCRETE 15 PAVEMENT - — CL 30.3 0.6 0.3 16.9 14.1 NV NP NP Dark brown, Moist SILTY LEAN CLAY trace grevol 2. MAN FILL CL U1 -MADE 3. Dark to very dark brown, Molsl, SILTY LEAN CLAY ^Sand In bottom of U1 ALLUVIUM SM SM SP SM SM S2 Brown, Damp, Loose, SILTY FINE SAND 7.0 ALLUVIUM 53 1 grown, Very moist, Loose, VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND with brawn and gray i mixed sandy loan clay seams Wet below 10 feet ALLUVIUM Surface 12.0 12 Brown, Wet Loose to Medium dense, POORLY GRADED SAND SOIL um ALL M 23.0' 54 S5 8 24 i3 LlgMgray. Wet, Medium VERY SILTY, INE SAND ALLUVIUM 27.0' 36 Llghtgra, Wet, Medium dense, FIN TO :OARSE SAND dhl grey limestone bedrock In sample SS ALLUVIUM 2.3 Bottom of Boring ® 32,25' $7 35 e2 �OeotechniDal GSI Servides, Inc. 1a6o7 A..ra Avena0. Urbandale, Iowa 60315 1615)270.6542 FAX 1515) 270 ,1911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2/16/12 BORING LOG No. T13-7 - BORING NO, LOCATION9F'BORfNO' - A• K.:OATUM L000ER- TB -7 Offset 5' North EXisting Sudaca N1A DAH JLH WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS "r-TYPE OFSURFACE — - I'•RH3 :. 0� Nt3.:. Elyp OF DRILLING;. ' 1 .- Ih J... , . As hall Street Mobile B -57 _ ' 71OTAL'Wii -. _. -_ , 9' 8' Backl1lled 3114 -Inch Hollow Stem Augers 3y y1v N 1" SAMPLE f 'c.�y1 i DATA f r 'V}tFu SOIL DESCRIPTION i� SrLaj.}. R .N'i11 ASPHALTIC CEMENT CONCRETE .3 PAVEMENT T Jt• [ '1 fll 20 LAeowaRYDATA 104 1 D 56.3 72.6 7.7 366 a ICY ,�JV.f..: t. �ryy1 U1 PP =1.0 4 PP =75 WCH 4 8 30 50/5" 131, 12" ' 15" 1" 16" 10" 15" 5" 24.6 273 NV 18.4 11.0 13.0 NP 4.3 CL 1) K Mown, Mo3s1, SILTY LEAN CLAY wth sand ALLUVIUM i OL R S2 Brol and gray mlXed, Mast, Medium stiff, SILTY LEAN CLAY Gray rust mottled below 7 feet AN, ALLILM IM 12 ff CL SP -SM U3 t2 • 1 •1: E f •l7: C 1: I a:l: C G 1 J . AX I I ,I 9:C 1 f ] ;L 1.'I 1.1;L i I;I:C1 y;I: • Gray, Wet, Louse, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND SOIL Brown and trace fine gravel 13" LTY M S4 SS a2.6 Light gray, Moist, Medium st , SANDYdEAN AY edk , , gray very silty fine sand eam. _- P =.7 15" ALLUVIUM CL SCSM S6 Clay, Wel, Dense, SIL .'c SAND dht gray limestone bedrock in sample S6 ALLUVIUM Bottom of Boeing 9 32.6' S7 30 �a 42 � Geoteohrlical GSI Services, Inc. 10607 Aurora Avenue, Urban6e14,I0waS V (515)270-6542 PAX(515)2T0.1911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2116112 BORING LOG No, TB -8 admieB.Ne. LOWDRI Ol rliz, .:.'ELEVATION I - - -DATUM I DRRRER. .' GGER T13-3 Offset 61 South Existing Surface WA DAH JLH WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS - iJ�TYPEOF URF QE DRILLR. '. -- A alt Street Mobile B -57 10' 7V2' BeCKhged 3114 -Inch Hallow Stem Augers 31'11" 11 q SAMPLE s 1 pATA 1 y� a SOIL DESCRIPTION �'.x.+ N" WS ASPHALTIC CEMENT CONCRETE ,S PAVEMENT LABORATORY DATA a PP =.5 PP =.75 5 14 11 16 16" 15" 13" 14" 6• 16" 14 4.. 22 104 66.5 1 64.6 37.2 22.4 SM Brown, Damp, 2.0' VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND with fine gravel MAN -MADE FILL CL SP CL S1 • ed, Motsl, dlum stilf, Brown and gray mbmd runt mON Me SILTY LEAN CLAY ALLUVIUM � Brmm arm gray mbied. Wet. Loose to medium dense.. POORLYC,RADED SAND Surface With fine gravel belDW 17 FP .5" ✓ERY a,. 9' ALLUVIUM 22. Gray, Very molal, Slif t0 very 'Off, SII" VERY FP=.5 AN CLAY 1 th, and seams =7 J. g y limestone bedrock in sample S6 ALLUVIUM 1.9 6 U2 U3 S4 12 19 S5 - 24 S6 S7 in Dotlom of Boling @ 31.83' 36 a? GSIGeoteclTrucal Services, Inc. 10607 Aurora avenue, Iowa soan {615)270.6542 FA%I516t270 -1911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2122112 BORING LOG No. TB -9 BORINGNO. LOCATION OF BORING, TION `, TUM'J DRILLER LOGGER TO -9 Offsel6'Nodh Existing Surface N/A DAH JLH WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS .:TYPE'.OFAURFACE - ... DRU RIG ... V ..'. tml�LtrJt3: ENDOF, owullii.. RB.hLNt4 1j41p11$• '.i, r -. Asphalt Street Mobile B-57 TIxtILe 1> u ALDIiM 91 71 Ba0khlled 31/4 -Inch Hollow Stem Augers 2816' r� SAMPLEDATA SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY DATA in Lv 6 PP =.75 PP =O' 10 16 7 4 6416" 12 14" 13" 18" iz, 14" 9" 8 ASPHALTIC CEMENT CONCRETE .3 PAVEMENT CL pg 82 92.0 07 07.0 48.6 32.6 28.9 18.9 Brown, Damp. SILTY LEAN CLAY with sera and fire gravel MAN.vAOErd- _ " - . •� CL -CH SP -SM CL S1 Dark brown, Moist, Medium stiff. SILTY LEAN TO FAT CLAY ALLUVIUM 70 • •I; Ii to Brown met mottled, M013L Medlum dense, i•1'•i t' POORLY GRADED SAND with alit 1 :1 K f C I 'Sand In boftom of U3 •L'J;f J, wet behw 9 feet s:Ia r ;I •;I: { 1 Surface f .11 C 1: SOIL r ...... ALLUVIUM 17.01 Brown and gray mixed. Very molat. Medium sWf to Stiff. VERY SANDY LEAN CLAY,. thin ,ema L 13' Gray b 1911- =.75 12 .ock in sample Se ALLUVIUM Bottom of Goring ® 2B.6' 28.6 NO A U2 U3 S4 12 S6 A SB 9n 57 30 S8 3R d9 GSIGeotechtvcal Serviee%Inc. 10307 Auma Avenua Urbandale, Iowa 50022 {5151270 -6542 FAk(515)270A911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2122112 BORING LOG No. TB -10 BORIMONO- ..''. LOCATION OF - BORING '. - ,ELEVATI N' • '.:!:Oh7U -. -." iLQGGER 78 -10 Offset6' Nonh 88' West Existing Surface N!A DAH JLH WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS - -UKULL : IG DhIL6;' N1146! � iRA}IQURBE ba •ie r - .,'f1.D'L1,1Nb.'� sa Asphat Street Mobile B -57 :`;o [Hon... - :; .,p .. 11' 6'8" Backfilled 3114 -Inch Hollow Stem Augers 21' 1" �r SAMPLE DA 7A SOIL DESCRIPTION LABDRATORYOATA h +v 8. .'N ,i T�I .�i`ex alt /C iv1 VMJVICR}�:•C r �`I• ��F �Ya �f, f�'iF to - rtn. %,J l�pr ' PP =75 PP =.5 PP <.25 50 500., 12" 12" 1D" 3" 1" j ASPHALTIC CEMENT CONCRETE ,61 PAVEMENT CL ' CL CL PIP 30 26 39 90 D7 70 90.0 80.4 87.9 38.4 34.4 373 19.6 18.1 16.9 Brown, Damp, 1' SILTY LEAN CLAY with sand MAN -MADE FILL U1 Very dark brown arld gray mixed, Malst. Medlum SIM. SILTY LEAN CLAY ALLUVIUM T Gray and brown mixed. Molst, Soft to medlum ai SANDY LEAN CLAY Very moist below 11 feet Thin wet sand seams below 12 feet BORING . 18 existing Suraacr ALLUVWM 170 Light bluleh gray. Mol6t• FAT CLAY (CLAY SHALE) Light gray llmestor roolckl0wmple�- PENNSYLVANIAN BEDROCK a U2 ?2 U3 - 1B b. BOAR' P =- � 12" 24 30 36 a9 ra GCICT Geotechnical ServiwS, h1O. +osar Aarwa Avxm•, Urbandale, w» $0312 (615)27abe42 FAX(613)27( 1911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2123/12 BORING LOG No. TB -11 - BORINGNO. . 1 OCATI WOFBO I G JATION . DATUK„ - - GRILLER LOWER - TU -11 Offset 100' East & 30' Nonh E7dsbng Surface NIA DAH JLH WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 7;':T.YPE:E EDURFACE. -, DRILL Qf .dLiJ�O;L DI�IIA'U60" 'LING 9' OMSS & Weeds 1 Mobile B -57 AL 11' T BackFllled 31/4 -inch Hollow Stem Augers 40'6" �„f,. arn, 9AMPL1: I'll DATA SOIL DESCRIPTION r3 n LASOR'ATORY DATA w PP =3b PPc,25 4 9 9 6 L28 14" 12" 12" 12" 10" 18" 12" 12" 3" Darkbrown,Molet, SILTY LEAN CLAY wilh organic matter 1.0 TOP'SoIL CL CL CL SM 25 39 97 82 9410 91.5 27.3 "A 36.5 25.B 22.7 : Gray rust tinoted, Marst Stiff, SILTY LEAN CLAY MAN-MADE FILL .4 Grey, MOlst to very MOISL SOIL, SANDY LEAN CLAY v ALLUVIUM Surface 2.0 Brown, Wet Loose to medium dense, - SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND Light brown very sandy Isar �elouop LEA 14" ALLW UM U1 6 U2 1� $3 18 S4 24 TFIT Dark gray, Wet, LOOSe, SILTY FINE TO COARS 0 P<,2 12' clay seams below 27 feet ALLUVIUM SM 55 S6 an Gray, Very moist Still, SANDY LEAN CLAY Light gray limestone bedrock In sample S9 ALLUVIUM CL 37 A SB 42 Bottoro Of Bodng (8y 40.6' rib CT Geotechnical GSI Services, Inc, 10807 Aarnra AVd6U4, dfb dNO. Iowa 60321 (616)2706542 FAX(516)270.1911 PROJECT: Taft Speedway Levee LOCATION: Taft Speedway, Iowa City JOB NO.: 126026 DATE: 2/22/12 ATTACHMENT B: Laboratory Testing HDR Engineering, Inc. 1 8406 Indian Hills Drive Phone (402) 39&1000 Omaha, NE 68114 Fax (402) 399 -4979 ww a hdrinc,com Tested By: JLH /BAY Checked By: ■IIIIIII■ III■ IIIIII�q�gIIlI111� ■Iq�I��1111IlaIIlI1 , III■ IIlII1II ■IIIIIIII■1911111i ■q�11111 ■IIIIIIII■ :, IIII IIII ■�Illlll■ ■IIIIIIIIIIIIN11111 ■IIIIIIII■ ,III■ IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII■IIlIII11■119II111 ■IIIIIII■ .,III■ IIIIIIII■ IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII■Il9[II11 milli llll■ ,III■ IIIIIIIIIIIII IIkIIIIl11 ■IIIIIl1�111aI111� a4ollllll1i ■IIIIIIII■ ,, ■II II1111■IIlIIl11 ■191 III 11111110 ,III ■II 1I11I1■Illll111■II Iq�IIIIIII ■��!�llll■ ,III IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII[��a� � ��d�19f1111 ■IIIIIIII■ ,III■ 1111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIII, llmllllllll ■Illlllll■ PERCENT Description ® FINE 1.� 0„ „0 0, , Atterbern Limits 0, , .,, �„ ,. , .98 1 D50= .. D3 01:2002 0120 . 1 916 99.9 ., ••. Classification 940 97.1 . :. .:, „ ; . Specific . Depth: Sample Date: . .. Engineering, Inc, GSIServices. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Inc. (516) 270-5542 FAX (516) 270 IM I Proiect No: 126026 Figure -� Tested By: JLH /BAY Checked By: Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: MTL iii „11111 ■11111111■ :; IIII�llllll�a�allll�lr��lglll�lr� ■1111111■ ■111111 ■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■IIII►�11 ;,III ■11111111■ ■111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ,11 11111111■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII■ .,11■ ■IIII1111■ 11111111■ 11111111■II11111MIIIIIIII 111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII�l11111111 .,III 1 11111 ■1111111101111 IIIIIIII ,III �I�I11III 1 11111 X111111111 ■� IIIIIIII •,I`� �,!!.IIII■ ,III MINOR ■11111111C��1�.�11 ■11111111 ■111111 ■�i ,11 X111 111 ■11111111 ■IIII1�� ■la,. ■11111111 ■11111111■ 11 1 0.01 U.001 Description S�� 00 00 0 , 00 100.0 100.0 coeffirlents #20 IWO Classification 1 99.9 • 99” Remarks #100 99.3 Specific Gravity Assumed Source of Depth: Sample Number: I Gc,oteehrii Ed 1 1 (515) 270-"42 PAX 1616) 270 IMI 1 Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: MTL :; IIINIIIIII��IIlI�1��IgIII111�111a1111 :,III ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIII�I ,III■ IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�� e .,Ili ■IIIIIIII IIIIIIII ■I 111111 ■IIIIIII ,111 ■IIIIIIII IIIIIIII ■I IIIIII'■IIIIIII e .,III ■III111II ■IIIIIIII ■1111111! ■1111111, e r 11 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■III IGe ■IIIIIIII 11■ llllllla�111111111 ■�,,I',�Ig111111111 ,111■ IIIIIIII ■111111�IC�I�I�,�II \�i�llll .111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIII� .� \��,. VIII \II�IIII X0+3" Coarse W .Rdium Fine silt Clav 0.0 0.0 1.7 8,0 68.5 21.8 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER 1. 1" 100, 3/4" 100.0 30 ]I2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100,0 #8 100,0 910 100.0 #16 100.0 920 99.9 #40 98.3 #60 935 #80 91.5 #100 91.1 #200 90.3 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -1 Depth: 12.5 Sample Number: U3 GSI Services, Inc. t 0607AUrora Ave, UrFAX (615, la 6632£ (6167 i]0.6603 FAX (616) 270-0811 Material Description Atterbera Limits PL= 13.1 LL= 31.4 P1= 183 Coefficients D90= 0.0735 D85= 0.0568 D80= 0.0277 D50= 0.0212 D30= 0.0107 D15= D10= CU CC= Classification USCS= CL AASHTO= A -6(15) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M °0.14 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: MTt Date: 4/13/12 10 9 8 W Z LL Z 5• W U W 4 a- 3 2 Particle Size Distribution Report 11 ■IIIIIIII Mill PERCENT FINER 0 -QCEr 1 -1/2" 100 1101.1 1" 100. lllll 314" III 30 ■11111111■ L`2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 11 ■IIIIIIII 10010 48 ■IIIIIIII #10 mill lIIn #16 100.0 IIII III 99.9 ■IIIIIIII■ 440 98.9 #60 11 ■IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII #80 52.0 #100 43.6 ■IIIIIIII 31.1 ■IIIIIIII ■Illlllll■ 11 ■IIIllllfl ■IIIIIIII ■IIIllllfl ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII■ ■illlllll ■Illlllll ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■Illlllll ■' i11 11■Illllllll�ll {111111 ■IIIIIII�!��IIIIIII ■IIIIIIII■ iimiiiiiillmiiiiiil-1 ■I�III�. �i�u�IgI1111 ■IIIIIIII■ III■ 1111111q�1�1111111 ■I�1�I�IIq►�IIII��l1 ■IIIIIIII■ III ■Illlllll ■IIIIIIII ■IIII it ■1111111■ 11111110 III■IIlIII1N ■llllll .! \Ills 111111111111 ■IlMilim 11 1 t I r 1 11 % +3" Coarse 1e .ledlum Fine Silt clav 0.0 1 0.0 1 1.1 I 67,8.__L 22.6 8.5 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER 0 -QCEr 1 -1/2" 100 1" 100. 314" 100.0 30 L`2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 10010 48 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 100.0 #20 99.9 440 98.9 #60 86.4 #80 52.0 #100 43.6 4200 31.1 Material Description AV!2rg Limits PL= � LL= PI= Coefficlenis D90= 0.2807 Dgrr 0.2462 D60= 0.1964 D50= 0.1750 DgD= 0.0674 D1g= 0.0241 D10= 0.0080 Cu= 24.46 CceF 2.88 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =0.65 ( ❑o specification provioca) Source of Sample: TB -1 Depth: 22.5 Sample Number: 55 Date: T Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. GSl Geoteclulicai Project: Taft Speedway Levee Services, Inc. M07A"rora Ave. Urhartl i&, IA 50922 (515)270.6542 FAX 1515) 270 -1011 ProiectNo: 126026 Figure Tested By: JLWIJLH Checked By: 10 91 81 71 6� 4 3 2 1 Particle Size Distribution Report VIII Ia111�1111�1r��lgl-1 PERCENT FINER �1 1 -1/2" 100 Irk 100. 1111 3/4" NINE 1/2" 100.0 11111INN 3/8" 100.0 #4 i11■ #8 100.0 111111A #10 100.0 ■11111111 99.9 #20 99.6 ■1111111 #40 96.2 #60 90.4 11111111 #80 84A ■11111111■ 81.6 #200 69.9 111■ 111111I1�111111111 ■111111111��111111 ■111111INN 111 ■1111111fl■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■111111 ■11111111■ 111■ 11111111■ 11111111 ■11111111■ 11111111 ■11111111■ III■ 11111111■ 11111111 ■1111111111111111�•11l�11111111 111■ 11111111■ 1111111 NMI 11I�1 1�11�11111irq,9111 111 ■111111I1�111111111 ■115,1 loll lll0 111105 1■ 11111111 ■11111111C��11!.�i1 ■�il1i111 1111111■ 1■ 11111111 ■�IIli11� \�d� �111�11111111 IIIIIIII I % +3 Coarse 0.0 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER �1 1 -1/2" 100 1" 100. 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100.0 #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 99.9 #20 99.6 #40 96.2 #60 90.4 #80 84A #100 81.6 #200 69.9 (no speciHCatlon provided) Source of Sample: TB -1 Depth: 32.5 Sample Number: S7 Geotechaical GSI Services, Inc. 10607 Aumm AV . Utband M., IA60322 1610270AM2 FAX (516) 270 -1611 Tested By: .tedium 3.8 40.8 j 29.1 Material Description Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D90= 0.2437 DBS= 0.1858 Dgp= 0.0529 Dgp= 0.0373 Dgp= 0.0061 D15= Dtp= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M.-O.27 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Date: 3/6/12 10( 9( 8( Fri 11.1 61 Z U- 51 U 41 CL Particle Size Distribution Report III ■111111 �1�1111�1 � i�ll1�1111111111111 - I - i) 1 -1/2" 100 1" 100. 3/4" 100.0 ■1111111 1/2" 100.0 318" 111■ #4 11111111 #8 ■11111111 410 100.0 ■11111111 #16 100.0 ■11!11111 #20 100.0 ■11111111 #40 99.4 #60 111�IIIIII1q�111111111 #80 36.6 #100 29.1 #200 14.2 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■11111111 11111111111 ■11111111 ■111111111 ■11f 11111 ■IIIIIIII■ ■Ilflllll■ 11111111 ■Iglll111� ■11111111 ■11111111■ ,III 1111111111111111111111 ■1111111�!I ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII■ 111 ■IIIIIIIB ■11111111 ■IIIII�.a1111111 ■ 1111111■ 111 ■( IIIIIIII ■11111111■11�1��1q�1��1111 ■ 1111111■ 111 ■IIIIIIII■1111111 1111.11 ■�Iy�lll ■wonM==1■ III ■11111111�1�Ifl111 III1111�IIIIII�I��I��'!•'!! +3" coarse Xe .tedium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.6 85.2 10.7 3.5 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER - I - i) 1 -1/2" 100 1" 100. 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 318" 100.0 #4 100.0 #8 100.0 410 100.0 #16 100.0 #20 100.0 #40 99.4 #60 77.9 #80 36.6 #100 29.1 #200 14.2 Material Descrl tlon Atterbera Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D90= 0.2866 D85= 0.2683 Dgp= 0.2186 D50= 0.2034 Dgp= 0.1561 DtS= OA784 D10= 0.0539 CU= 4.06 Cc= 2.07 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M °0.78 (no specitication provided) Source of Sample: TB -2 Depth: 4 Sample Number: S2 Date: 3/6/12 (�1 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. GSIGeotechnicai Project: Taft Speedway Levee IJ Services. Inc. 166Pl AO..e Av.. UEandal% IA 60322 (615127P 42 FAX J515) 270-1911 Prolect No: 126026 Figure Tested By: JLHIJLW Checked By: Tested By: JLH Checked By: MTL '�I�i�1�1a1�11�11111 ■11111111■ : ;1111111IIII��gllll�l ■111111111!111111 ■11111�i� ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII■ :,III ■11!11111■ 1I11111�111111111 ■111111111111111111 ,III■ 111■ 1111111 ■IIlII111 ■11111111111111111 ■Illlllll■ ■IIlfl111■ IINMI IIIIi11 ■IIIIi111 ■11111111 ■111111 ■ III ■11111111■ . IIIIIIII ■11111111■11111111P �llll ,III■ Milli 1111111111111 ■111114 ■11111111 ■11111111■ ,III III 11 Mill ■11111111ri��r1.11� 111 ■Il1111111�1111111 ■11111111 11111111r III■,fllll111 ■1111 111 Naomi 11m11111111 . e` u NEW Ias ®� ,,0 .. ., :. Tested By: JLH Checked By: MTL Tested By: JLH /JLW Checked By: MTL • 'I�III�11�.II �gllll�l {11111 ■11111111■ ' ;11111111111 111 ■11111111■11111111 ■11111111 ■li °11111 ■11111111■ :, ■11111111■ 111■ I{ 1111111�II111111 ■IIIIII1q�111111111 ■II{ 11111 ■IIi11111 ■IIIIIIII■11II1111 ■111111INN ,111 11111111 ■1 {111111 ■11111111111111111 ■IIIIIIMIN ,111■ ■IIIIIIII■ 11111111 ■11111111■ . 111111111■ IIIIIIII ,III■ ■11111111■ {111111 ■I� I 1 ■11111111 ■��IIIIII■ ,11 f 1 ■M1111111 ■1111'11:•:■ ■1111111111111111 ■'. ,11 ■111111 i1111,43 1{11i111 ■11111111■ 111■I1111111 11111111 11111111,,, ■11111!! \Ie� 1111 ,III■11111111 '• 1 . i FAX [5101270-1011 .: .. Tested By: JLH /JLW Checked By: MTL IN 9( N 7i 6( 51 41 31 Particle Size Distribution Report 11111111111 1�a11111 `� 1�111�1�I�II�Ii111 0 _�C -0 1 -1/2" 100. IV 1" 100. ■11111/11■ 100.0 0 1/2" 100.0 III 3/8" ■11111111■ #4 100.0 11111111 #8 100.0 ■111111111■11111111 #10 100.0 #16 100.0 ■IIIIIIII■ #20 100.0 #40 III■ #60 HI1111q #80 62.4 #100 55.2 #200 41.5 ■IIIIIIII■ 111 ■1111111fl■ 11111111 ■I1I1111N ■III 111MINI 1111111■ 111 ■////1111 ■11111111 ■III11111�11111111 ■11111111■ 111■ 1111111aI�III11111 ■11111111��'a�1111 ■IIIIIIII■ 111 oil 111111■ 11111111 ■I111111 ■11mi11■11111111■ 11■ ■Ill1111111 111111 ■111 �111�111111I1 ■IIIIIIII■ II■■ll 1111IS 1111/01111 \ie� ail ��IN�11111111�IIIlll1� ■�i1111111111111 ■Million ■�� IIIII ■�1111�.! 1111 %+3.. Coarse - 1e Medium Fine Silt Cla r Ili 0 0 0,0 0.1 58.4 31.5 10.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER = 0 _�C -0 1 -1/2" 100. IV 1" 100. 3/4" 100.0 0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100.0 #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 100.0 #20 100.0 #40 99.9 #60 91.5 #80 62.4 #100 55.2 #200 41.5 - (no specitication promtleA) Source of Sample: TB -3 Depth: 4 Sample Number: S2 Geptechnical GSIsemcee.10c. 10807A�Ver. Ave, Urb.d2i3 MOM 1515)2]0 -5592 FAX (51 �)2i01911 Tested By: JLH/ Materiai Description Atterbera Limits PL= NP LL= 15.6 PI= NP Coefficients D90= 0.2451 D85= 0.2313 D60- 0.1726 D50= 0.1181 Dap= 0.0479 D15= 0.0184 010= 0.0048 Cu= 35:85 C� 2.76 Classlflcatlon USCS= SM AASHTO= A -4(0) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =0.50 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Proleet No: 126026 Checked By: Date: 3/14/12 Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: MTL ' : ;III ■Illlll�allll 1 HOW 1111111111 ■11111111■ 11111111■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 :,III■ ■IIIIIIII 1111111111111■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■!I�IIIII i • ■11111 III■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■llp�llll ■11111111■ .,111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111■ ,III ■IIIII1 01111111■ IIIIIIIIIIIII■ 11111111 ■Illllll� . 1 11111111 ■11111111 ■Illllp. INN ,III■ 11,11 1111 HIM 11111111111111x11111111 ■11,11 11104N 11111111■ 11111111C�111111i1 ■d111111 ■II��II'CS ,III■ 1 III■ 11111111■ �Ilil�� ■11111111�11111111o11111111 1 1,00,0 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 • - 99.9 1 99,8 1 1 �•1 . 1 .• .I :F i 1 •' 1 Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: MTL lot 9( III 71 W 61 Z LL Z 51 Z W U LL 41 a- 31 21 11 I Particle Size Distribution Report °10 *3 Coarse 'e nedium Fine Silt Clay D.0 4.0 19.7 36.6 25.1 9.5 SIEVE WE PERCENT FINER -, ,.. ^' -' d III■ 100. Illlll�l 96. 40 •�n1I1111�IIIlII1a1111111111 96.0 1/2" 953 318" 95.3 #4 94.1 ■IIIIIIII■ #8 91.6 #10 III■ #16 IIIIIIII #20 ■11III11I�i� #40 71.2 °lIIIIA #60 65.1 ■IIIIIIII #80 53.9 ■IIIIIIII■ 47.9 #200 34.6 II■II I I I I II II ■IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■MOM ■IIIIHIM III■ IIIIIIII■ IIIIIIII ■1111111 ■1111111101111 111■ 111■ IIIIIIII■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■111[1111 ■11111111■ 111■ IIIIIIII ■11111I11■1111I111 ■IIIII111 ■11111111■ MINIM III■ 1111111 1 �1111 ■III[11i1■ 111 111[1111 ■HOME 1IIIIIIIIl1101[IIII■1111 11111111111111111101111 i■ 111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII \ie111111 ■11111111 ■1111111I� °10 *3 Coarse 'e nedium Fine Silt Clay D.0 4.0 19.7 36.6 25.1 9.5 SIEVE WE PERCENT FINER -, ,.. ^' -' d 100. t" 96. 40 314" 96.0 1/2" 953 318" 95.3 #4 94.1 #8 91.6 #10 90.9 #16 87.4 #20 83.4 #40 71.2 #60 65.1 #80 53.9 #100 47.9 #200 34.6 - (no specification provided) Source of sample: TB -3 Depth: 22.5 Sample Number. S7 "GSI G��e1�e�1 •5'ePV1ce3. ]'tic. Aurora Ave. Ofben Gale) 27 -1912 (616f 2r6A641 FAX (515) ]7G -1911 Material Description Atterbera Limits PL= 15.7 LL= 19.7 PI= 4.0 Coefficients D90= 1.6865 D85= 0.9452 D60= 0.2124 D50= 0.1606 D30=0.0597 D15= 0.0174 DtD= 0.0057 Cu= 37.10 Cc= 2.83 Classification USCS= SC -SM AASHTO= A- 2-4(0) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =1.42 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: MTL Date: 3/12/12 O 1 :; IIIIIIaIII��gIIII�I��lglll�laltll {allll :,11 ■II {11111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■1111111 IINIIIIIIII ■11111111 ■111111111 ■II {1111 r .,11 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■llllll111 ■1111111 ,11 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIII .,11 ■111111Ifl ■1111111 ■1111111Vl11111111 ,III ■IIIIIIIB ■11111111 ■11111�.�� ■1111111 III ■111111Ia111a1111111 ■1111r11A �111 111■ 11111111 ■1111111■■I1111111■oN1ll1111 �� ■�■11�111�11I■IBi111� ■i� 1��1ldlll�ll�� % +3" coare 0.0 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER Ilk 0 "'CEI. 1 -1/2" 100.0 PI= NP 1" 100.0 D90= 0.2858 D85= D.2691 3/4" 100.0 133p= 0.1776 D45= 0.0699 1/2" 100.0 , Cc= 3.72 3/8" 100.0 USCS= SM AASHTO= #4 100.0 Remarks #8 100.0 F.M.—O.83 #10 100,0 #16 100.0 #20 100.0 #40 99.5 #60 76.8 #80 31.0 #100 24.4 #200 15.7 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -4 Depth: 2.5 Sample Number: Sl Geotechnieal GSI Services. Inc. 10607Aumm Ave. Urbandale, IA 60322 (6167270.8664 FAX 1616) 270A311 Slit 83.8 Material Description 4.0 Date: 3/14 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Project No: 126026 Figure Tested By:.JLW /JLH Checked By: Atterberg Limits PL= NP LL= 1VV PI= NP Coefficients D90= 0.2858 D85= D.2691 D60= 0.2230 1350= 0.2093 133p= 0.1776 D45= 0.0699 1310= 0.038D C 5.87 Cc= 3.72 Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= A- 2 -4(0) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M.—O.83 Date: 3/14 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Project No: 126026 Figure Tested By:.JLW /JLH Checked By: Particle Size Distribution Report ' ;III ■111111�IlMOORilll. PERCENT FINER_ ,n .. - ''CEr. I.. -I ■1111111 100. 50 Coefficients 1" ■1[1!1111 D85= 0.I465 L' 60= 0.0400 3/4" ■111!!11 D15= D10= 1/2" ,11111!!11 Hill Classification 11111 100.0 :,III A -6(13) #4 ■II111111 Specific Gravity #8 100.0 ■11111111 #10 100.0 ■111!1111 #16 99.8 ■111�i11 #20 99.1 ,III #40 92.9 ■1[1!1111 #60 90.0 ■11111111 #80 86.8 ■111!1111 #100 85.1 ■111!111 80.9 ,111 ■1111 1111 ■111!1111 ■111lIIIN ■1111111, ,III ■Ilallllfl ■11111111 ■I111111fl ■1111111 ,III 111 ■1111111111111111 ■I1111�. �i11111111 ,III ■111l111�1111 !11111 ■I116��X��1111' ■111!1111111111111■ 11111111111111 ,111 ,III ■11111111 ■11111 .� ■1 IIi11N�111[IIII 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER_ ,n .. - ''CEr. I.. -I 1-1/2" 100. 50 Coefficients 1" 100. D85= 0.I465 L' 60= 0.0400 3/4" 100.0 D15= D10= 1/2" 100.0 Classification 3/8" 100.0 AASHTO= A -6(13) #4 100.0 Specific Gravity #8 100.0 F.M =0.28 #10 100.0 #16 99.8 #20 99.1 #40 92.9 #60 90.0 #80 86.8 #100 85.1 #200 80.9 12.0 1 58.9 Material Descri action (no specification provided) Source of Sample: Ts -4 Depth: 7.5 Sample Numher S2 Date: 3/12/12 IN Client: HER Engineering, Inc. Geotectnucrd Project: Taft Speedway Levee GSI Services, Ine. 10607 AUrona Ave. Urbandale, IA 60922 (6161270.6602 FAX(616(2i0 -1911 Proiect Na: 126026 Figure Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: Atte- rbem Llmits PL= 15.2 LL 329 Me: 17.7 Coefficients D90= 0.2505 D85= 0.I465 L' 60= 0.0400 D50= 0.0298 D30= 0.0118 D15= D10= Cue Cc= Classification USCS= CL AASHTO= A -6(13) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =0.28 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: Ts -4 Depth: 7.5 Sample Numher S2 Date: 3/12/12 IN Client: HER Engineering, Inc. Geotectnucrd Project: Taft Speedway Levee GSI Services, Ine. 10607 AUrona Ave. Urbandale, IA 60922 (6161270.6602 FAX(616(2i0 -1911 Proiect Na: 126026 Figure Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: ., 11111111111�1�� 1111�1��111111111111111 : ,III ■11111118 ■1!111111 ■��111111 ■1111111 ,III■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■1111111q ■1111111 .,III■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■1111111 ■1111111 III ■IIIII111�111111111 ■IIIIlI1N ■!111111 . , 11111111111111�111II111 ■IIIII�1�111111111 ,III ■11111 HIM IIIIII ■11 I 1111111 ,III 11111111110111111 ■I.." I, 1 11,11111 111 ■11111111■11111111C�o"AloII ■1111111 1 ■■■■11HUNIIMM1111114■0i. 11■�l■j1d1111 13" Coarse .tedium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 61.3 36.0 1.4 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER 40 E.. (•. �1 1 -112" 100 1" 100. 3/4" 100.0 30 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 99.6 #8 98.9 #10 98.7 #16 96.3 #20 89.0 440 37.4 460 7.9 #80 2 -1 #100 1.6 #200 1.4 " (nospeciticadonprovided) Source of Sample: TB -4 Depth: 12.5 Sample Number: S3 Material Description Atterbem Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D90= 0.8714 D85= 0.7842 D60= 0.5580 D50= 0.4960 D30= 0.3844 D95: 0.2985 D10= 0.2657 c0= 2.10 Cc= 1.00 Classification USCS= SP AASHTQ= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M.2.22 Date: 3 -13 -12 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. VA GSI Geotechnicel Project: Taft Speedway Levee Services, Inc. 1000VALI.n Ave. Urbandale, IA 6D922 (515)2]D -65@ FAX (6151270-1911 ProleCt No: 126026 Figure Tested By: JLWIJLH Checked By: 11 MIND 1M 1111 :1.�I�lII�l111lil�llll 111 111 MINE 1111111 11111111 1111111 III 1111111M111111 01111111; III 11111110111111 HI�111101111111! 11�1I11111011111111 1 I 111111111 . 1 1101111111101111111100111 1 1111111 2111�IIII1111M1111111 11111, 1111111 111111111111111101111119 !.2111111 X1111111 ,111�11111111W11111 1411 .0110119,1111 .111�11111111� IN?. all 1111011�1�0 %+3" Coarse eedium Fine Silt Cla, 0.0 4.0 52.9 28.5 5.3 4.3 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER e E, t. d 1 -1/2" 100 1" 100. 0 3/4" 96.0 1/2" 96.0 3181, 95.0 #4 94.5 #8 91.9 #10 91.0 #l6 86.3 #20 78.1 #40 38.1 #60 16.0 #80 11.8 #100 11.0 #200 9.6 (no spccnicahon provnden) Source of Sample: TB -4 Depth: 22.5 Sample Number: SS GSI��°�°� °� 5 ala, 1 CCa. Inc. 1151]AUrore 2 UrFAX(0e, 2761492 515) 2704542 FA %2516) 2]P1971 Material Description Atterbem Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D90= 1.6779 D85= 1.0906 D60= 0.6033 D50= 0.5156 D30= 0.3659 D15= 0.2385 D10= 0.0864 cu= 6. CC= 157 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M.--2.44 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By-. JLW /JLH Checked By: Date: 3 -13 -12 ,ol 9f 81 r[ Z 61 LL Z 51 W L) W 44 Q. 3i 2i Particle Size Distribution Report III ■1111I1� 1i •Igllll�l�•�Ig111�111111�11111 PERCENT FINER — (•l 100 1" 100. 3/4" ■IIIIIIII■ 30 112" 100.0 III■ 3/8" 100.0 IIIIIIII #4 100.0 ■Ii111111 #8 100.0 ■IIIIIIIN 100.0 #l6 ■IIIIIIII #20 100,0 ■iilll111■ #40 99.8 III■I1111111oi1111111 90.4 #80 78.0 #100 73.1 #200 ■11111111 X11111111 ■11111111■ 111■ IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■�i111111 ■11111111■ 111 ■IiIIIlI1■IIiIII 1 MIND 111 ■IIIIIIII ■11111111■ III■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■111111111111111111 0111111110 11■■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■iillllil ■IIIIIIII■ 11 milli I1111111111111 ■I111l I mi111111i0I1111111■ III ■IIIIIIII ■1111111 milli, iI ■dllllll ■i�rr��•1■ III ■IIIIIIII ■�1111��_� Il�1i111111�11111111 %13" 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER — (•l 100 1" 100. 3/4" 100.0 30 112" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100.0 #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #l6 100.0 #20 100,0 #40 99.8 #60 90.4 #80 78.0 #100 73.1 #200 61.2 (no spemftcahon provtaea) Source of Sample: TB -5 Depth: 4 Sample Number: GSI S entechr line I.J Services, lane. 5Aurora Ave. Urbandale, 5322 (b15) 27 0.S62 FAX (616)2761911 'e Silt 0.2 1 35.6 Material Description Atterbera Limits PL= 16.1 LL= 25.3 P1= 9.2 Coefficients Clay 14,9 1196= 0.2468 D85= 0.2165 D60= 0.0712 D50= 0.0499 D30= 0.0240 D15= 0.0051 D10= Cu= Cc Classification USCS= CL AASHTO= A -4(3) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =0.32 Client: HDREngineering,ine. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Project No: 126026 Tested By: JLHlBAY Checked By: Date: 3/20/12 Or, MIME • -•. ■IIIIIIII■ :; IIIIIIIIIII�a��1111�1��IgIl1I11I111IIII111 ■11111111■ IIIIIIII® IIIIIIII ■lil1111I�111[IIII :,111■ ■1l1i��11�11111111■ 111111g1l IIIII ■IllIlI11 ,III■illl ■III! 111■i1111111■1111111I ■Illl INN ,III 11111111■ ■11111111■ 11111111 ■1111 III 1■IIIII HIM ,III III■IIII1111M1l 111111 ■IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII■ 11111118 ■1111111■■iilIIp1I■11111111 i1l11111■ ,III■ 11111■ III■ 11111111111111111 ■II�I�11q■11111111I ;III ■11111111 ■i1111111 ';�fl �q��llu�i�illllll ■1111111'i■ ■�II11��!ilesl IIMIIIIIIIIMIII11111, .I11■,I�llllll , PERCENT �® Material .. ® ,,, ,,, 0, ,,, #10 100.0 D50= 0,0267 D30= 0,0156 D15= U015 ., 440 . . . 9 .: Classification #30 913 Remarks #100 89.2 Specific Gravity Assumed 4200 (no sp6ficatton provided) Source Sample Depth: Date: Project: . Speedway Jmz� 2MOM FMJ5i5)270,1M1 Pro act NO: 126026 Figure Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: 101 91 8& 71 6� 5' 4 3 2 Particle Size Distribution Report '10 Sand %Fines 1 e m ediu I Fine I silt I Clay 0.0 2.1 67.5 1 16.9 1 1.8 1.2 SIEVE PERCENT ..� SIZE FINER 0�CEI. 4 �) 1 -1 /2" 100 1" 100. 0 3/4" 97.9 1 /2" 94.1 3/8" 92.7 #4 90.1 #8 87.9 #10 87.4 #16 84.3 #20 77.6 #40 19.9 #60 5.9 #80 3.9 #100 3.5 #200 3.0 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -5 Depth: 17.5 Sample Number: 55 GSIServices, Inc. 'IO sis Aurora Ave. UrFAX(51e, IA -124 I$1$j 2]DA544 FAX (51fi) 4T0-09t1 Material Description Atterberg Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D90= 4.5656 D85= 1.3036 D60= 0.6676 D50= 0.6005 D30= 0.4855 D15= 0.3890 D10= 0.3380 C0= 1.98 Cc= 1.04 ClasslfEcatlon USCS= SP AASHTQ= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =2.86 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: MTL Date: 3 -13 -12 111allllll� 1 1! 1 1■l1II1Ia1�II I IlI11 ■ ■1111111 ■ ■ III ■ ■IIIIIIII ■ ■1111111211111111 ■ ■11111111 ■ ■1111111 ■ ■ III ■ ■111111E I III I IIII ■ ■I111111111III1111 ■ ■IIIIIIII■ III ■ ■111111111■ 1 11111 H HIM I II m milli IIII■ III ■ ■III11111■111II111 ■ ■IIIlIIl1 ■ ■1111111 ■ ■11111111■ III■ I IIIIi111�lIIIIlI11 ■ ■1111�11P�111III 1 11 ■ ■IIIIIIII■ III ■ ■II111118■11111111■IlIIIF.� ■ ■1111111 ■ ■IIIIIIII■ III■ 1 1111111a�111111111�r . .t��lq�'�IIa11111 ■ ■Illlllll■ MINIM 1 111■ 1 1111111114115111 I I10 1 11111 ■ ■II111111■ III■°I�111111 ■ ■�II11� , ,! \ \�s�.�111 1 11b11111 1 11111NO '10 Sand %Fines 1 e m ediu I Fine I silt I Clay 0.0 2.1 67.5 1 16.9 1 1.8 1.2 SIEVE PERCENT ..� SIZE FINER 0�CEI. 4 �) 1 -1 /2" 100 1" 100. 0 3/4" 97.9 1 /2" 94.1 3/8" 92.7 #4 90.1 #8 87.9 #10 87.4 #16 84.3 #20 77.6 #40 19.9 #60 5.9 #80 3.9 #100 3.5 #200 3.0 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -5 Depth: 17.5 Sample Number: 55 GSIServices, Inc. 'IO sis Aurora Ave. UrFAX(51e, IA -124 I$1$j 2]DA544 FAX (51fi) 4T0-09t1 Material Description Atterberg Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D90= 4.5656 D85= 1.3036 D60= 0.6676 D50= 0.6005 D30= 0.4855 D15= 0.3890 D10= 0.3380 C0= 1.98 Cc= 1.04 ClasslfEcatlon USCS= SP AASHTQ= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =2.86 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: MTL Date: 3 -13 -12 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -5 Depth: 17.5 Sample Number: 55 GSIServices, Inc. 'IO sis Aurora Ave. UrFAX(51e, IA -124 I$1$j 2]DA544 FAX (51fi) 4T0-09t1 Material Description Atterberg Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D90= 4.5656 D85= 1.3036 D60= 0.6676 D50= 0.6005 D30= 0.4855 D15= 0.3890 D10= 0.3380 C0= 1.98 Cc= 1.04 ClasslfEcatlon USCS= SP AASHTQ= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =2.86 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: MTL Date: 3 -13 -12 tot st 7( Z 61 LL Z 51 W U W 4( a- N 21 Particle Size Distribution Report IIIIIIII111� PERCENT FINER CE, .) 1 -1/2" 100. IIII 11 iHill �g1111�11111■llllllll■ 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 III■IIIIIIII■ #8 98.9 #10 98.5 lIIIIIII #16 97.1 ■IlIIIII�1111111111 #20 95.8 #40 92.9 ■Illlllll■ 82.0 #80 74.2 III■l1 #100 70.1 111111 #200 49.6 ■11111111■I111111I' Illlllll ■11111111■ III ■lIIIIIII■ 11111111 ■lIIIIIII ■IIII1111■lIIIIIII■ III ■IIIIIIIII■1!l 11111 ■I111111N ■�Ig11111 ■Illlllll■ III■ lIIIIIII■ lIIIIIII ■IIIIII1111111�►1111 ■lIIIIIII■ III ■lIIIIIII■ 11111111 ■Illllll�llIlllllll ■Illlllll ■i IIIIIIIlllllal■ 11111111 ■1111111► �,�I1I11�I�IIIIIlI1■ III ■11111111 ■11111111 ■III II�d111111riii'liil•: ■' III ■11111111 ■�l111111 ■III II�11111111�111111IIN coarso 191 tedium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 5.6 43.3 34.1 15.5 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER CE, .) 1 -1/2" 100. 1" 100. 3/4" 100.0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 99.9 #8 98.9 #10 98.5 #16 97.1 #20 95.8 #40 92.9 #60 82.0 #80 74.2 #100 70.1 #200 49.6 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: T3-5 Depth: 22.5 Sample Number: S6 In GSI��° °� Services. Inc. 1869] 270, a42 e168ntl01 IA 60312 (59512]08542 PAX Material Description Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D90= 0.3550 D85= 0.2825 D60= 0.1043 D50= 0.0759 D30= 0.0359 D15= 0.0037 D10= Cu Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravily Assumed F.M =0.52 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JI W /JI_H Checked By: MTL Date; 3 -13 -12 .; III■ Illlll��l�gllll�lr •�igii1�1�111111111 :,III ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■1!11111 111111111111111111111 ■IIIIIIIII,lllllll .111 ■11111!11 ■IIIi1111 ■IIIIIIII ■I�illl ,III ■11111111 ■11111111 ■1111111N ■Ilallll . „ III■ 11111111111111111 ■1111111111111111 ,III■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■1111111 ■1111i1�1 ,III ■IIa11111�111111111 ■I ICI � = �IIIIIII�� III ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■I 11111 �ii111111� % +3" Coar. 0.0 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER q 1 -1/2" 100.0 50 1" 100.0 314" 100.0 112" 100.0 318" 100.0 #4 100.0 #8 99.9 #10 99.8 #16 99.4 #20 98.8 #40 96.7 #60 90.2 #80 83.3 #100 78.8 #200 55.5 edium 1 Fino Silt clay 3.7 41.2 39,5 16.0 Material Description Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D90n 0.2470 D85= 0.1938 D60= 0.0843 D50= 0.0652 D30= 0.0352 D15= 0.0036 D1 Q= CU= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTU= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =0.31 (no specincahon provided) Source of Sample: T13 -5 Depth: 27.5 Sample Number: 57 Date: 3 -13 -12 lb Client: HDR Enginccring, Inc. 6�1 �T �te�cal Project: Taft Speedway Levee 7 Servicea.Inc. 10101 pdrora Avn tlrb Ori o ,Ip"2 (11s}no ssax PAX 11214A911 Proiect No: 126026 Figure Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: MTL Particle • • Report 111 ■Illl01 Will 11* 0111111101111111 ;, III■11111111■11111111 ■Illlllll� ■1111111 ,III ■11111111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■1111111 .,III ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII01111111 ,111 ■Illllill ■11111111 ■11111111!�IIIIIII .,III■ 11111111 ■111111111 ■1111111�!��IIIIII ,11■ ■1 111111 ■ ■1111111■■�11111►.d0�I�1111 111 ■111111111 11111111■ .101111101111111 111■ 11111111 ■111111IIC�I�I�.�II�i111111 ' It ■�■llllll� ■I■ldlllll� ■�. �I��Ildllldll�� 0 +3 Coarsa 1 ce .Aedium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.3 69.4 22.1 8.2 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER __ ` D--QCE, t. q 1 -1/2" 100.0 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 0 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100.0 #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 100.0 #20 100.0 #40 99.7 #60 84.6 #80 51.7 #100 44.0 #200 30.3 Material Description Atterbera Limits PL= NP LL= 14.1 PI= NP Coefficients Dg0= 0.2887 D85= 0.2523 D60= 0.1979 D50= 0.1753 D30= 0.0739 D15= 0.0320 D10= 0.0136 Cu= 14.50 Cc= 2.03 Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= A- 24(0) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.bl: 0.65 " (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -6 Depth: 4 Sample Number: S2 Date: 3/12/12 Client: HDREngineering,lnc. GSIGeotechnical Project: Taft Speedway Levee Serviees, Inc. 10007 AUMM AY9. U(ba0dalq IA 60322 (615t 2706642 F"161612704011 Project No: 126026 Fioure Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: af W Z v _ _ Particle Size Distribution Report, III Milli II� � !III�IIi11111111111111 SI�IIIIIIII�IIIIl11 liIIIIllMlilllll IIIIIIIlIlI1p�IIIII111r�IlIII1N�IliIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII�Ii�11111�1 ill 111�IilIIlI1�IIIIIIl1�III�II1N�lllllll 11111111111II�Iiiilllllmlilll11 111111 111�II111111�11111111�111i�A ! IIIIIII HIIIIia11111�Ia1111111��.,�� ip�`�Ilallll , III�11111111�IIIIIIIIC�111 !,�1A�rI11111 III�Ililllll��illl� .! \ie�l.��1l�ll1a111! %+3.1 Coati 0.0 0.0 tedium Fine Silt 58.3 27.2 0.3 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER1 Material Description - 1 -1/2'' 100.9 1" 100. 314 100.0 30 Atterbera Limits 112" 96.7 PL= LL= PI= 318" 94.8 #4 92.0 Coefficients #8 87.1 D90= 3.5129 D85= 1.7580 D80= 0.6907 #10 86.1 D50= 0.5918 DgO= 0.4401 D,S= 0.3345 #16 79.6 D-10= 0.2959 Cu= 2.33 C� 0.95 #20 70.8 Classification 440 27.8 USCS= SP AASHTO= 460 5.0 #80 1.2 Remarks 0100 0.9 Specific Gravity Assumed #200 0.6 F.M =2.84 (no specffication provided) Source of Sample: T13-6 Depth: 12.5 Sample Number: S4 Date: 3 -13 -12 (y T Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. ( T■ Geoteclvuoal Project: Taft Speedway Levee L ♦.J S!l Services. Inc. 10l97AuporeAVS. nrbentlale, IA 603Yt Isrsl aro -esa: vaXOM2rn -3s1a Project No: 126026 Figure Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: ZGT Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: '; IIIIIIII111�1�ii1�111 ■IaIll�lallll�llll ■11111111 ■11111111 ■Illllll� ■1111111A ■1111111 ■IIIIIIII : ,III 11111 ■I HIM I IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIIigIllIII1I Mill ,III■ III ■11111111■IIIIIIIIl�11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII■ ■III 11111 IIIIIIII \��lIII1N ■11111111 ,111 ■IIIIIIII■ I11■ 1111111 ■IIIIIIII ■1IIIIIR�IIfI11111 111111 11111■ 1111111 ■I�l�I�.dlIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII■ NINEllI 111111■�..,I��Iq►�11111111 ■IIIIIIII■ i1 ■�III 1111 ■1111HIM III ■11111111 ■11111 IIC�111� ■illl581h11111.1.iLIIa111�� .III■,Illlilll �� Description ® 1003S 00 too born Limits "ML—r 1/2" 98.0 PL= FI= .: 84 92.6 .., .. •., 410 78.1 . , , �: �. �„ 916 62.4 . . , :, 47.4 Classification 040 13.0 USGS= SP AASHTO= 8 ., #200 . (no sp�cification provided) Source of . - Depth: Date: Sample Num .- Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: Tested By: JLH /JLW Checked By: � ' III11■ ;111�111111� pII11�l1�IaII1�Iafl111111111 ■II ■11111111 ■II III11■ III ■111111111■ 1N1 HIM rMli11 :1 ■11111111 ■11111111■ i111111111111�111111111 ■IIIIIIII ■ ■11111111 ■H 1111 ■1111111fl ■11111111 ■ MINE ,III ■11111111■ 111111111■ 11111111 ■11111111 1111111111111 ,111■ ■IIIl111FE11011I1 ■IllONE i11■ 1111 1111 111111111 . , ■11111111 ■11111111 ■UP IIIaON ■11111111■ a 111 1 ■IIIIIIII�Ia1111111■'.��1 �Gai�111 ■1111111■ 1 ■1111 1111■ 11111111C�11�� .�i1�111��11��I1111111■ '!'��'��1�NII11111�iii1iil: Illll� 11111111111■ r Material .- . r FINE ®� 1' 0 11 111 r, 318" 99.3 94.1 •.1 • I.r 1 •rl rl 410 93.2 D50= 1330 1.1517 • 1 90.0 Dlo= 464 r #20 85.5 classification 940 • C .1 �• 1 1 29.8 Specific Gravity Assumed I Source of r - i • Depth: Date: Sample • r SA *4ff Services, Inc. 1007 AU., • 1 Tested By: JLH /JLW Checked By: • 1 • • '; IIIIIIIIIII�q 'i��IIII�1� +�1a1iI11N■IIIIIII III ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■I11111 1111111 11111111111 ■11111111■1111111g1 ►1111111 .,III ■i1111 111 ■11111111 ■Illllllfl1►111�1111� ,111■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■1i�1111 .,III ■Illllllq ■11111111 ■1111111q�111111�1 ,III ■Illllllq ■11111111 ■111 lIIN ■1111111, 1110111111111111 111111q■1111111. III■ Illllllq ■1111111101111111 ■ii11111 ' It■ �■ IIHIII� ■Itldllll�� ■■I�iN��ll�1111��1� %+ 3.1 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER _ y$- -CEN ' _ 1 -1/2" 00.0 1" 100. 314" 100.0 3� 1/2" 100.0 318" 100.0 #4 100.0 #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 100.0 #20 99.9 #40 95.1 #60 86.7 #80 75.7 #100 70.3 #200 56.3 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -7 Depth: 2.5 Sample Number: U GSI r vices. Inc. 1 Oal5127 re 2 UrFM (516 27 -1911 16161296fi6J2 FA%t515) 174 -0911 Alm 1.9 Silt 41.8 Material Description Atterbera Limits PL= 13.6 LL= 24.6 PI= 11.0 Coefficients D90= 0.2804 D85= 0.2373 11 80= 0.0889 D80= 0.0603 Dg0= 0.0320 015= 0.0101 D1O= 0.0013 C0= 67.22 Cc= 8.69 Classification USES= AASHTO= A -6(3) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =0.39 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: MTL Date: 4 /13/12 Particle Size Distribution Report $ ¢ � b el N Y it i iY R A 100 I I 1 I I I I I ll I I 90 80 I I t l l I I I I I I I I I I 4 I ! I I I I 70 I I { I I ! I I I I 1 1 1 1 of w I I I I I so Z ! I I I I I k 1 1 l F I I I I I I I 50 I I I I I l i l I I I l E w s,0 Q. 1 I I I 11 I I 1 k I I I! I I I 1 I! I 30 ! I I I I I I I n J I I f l 20 1 I I! I I I I I s ! I I P I I I f I I I I a� I I� --0 0 0 I I 1 1 I I l E l 100 I0 0.1 0.01 0.001 _ AqP - 17E -mm. °h Grav ,o Sand % Fines +3„ Coarse .dium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 1.2 26.2 56.4 16.2 PERCENT Material Description SIEVE SIZE FINER CEn 1 -1 /2" 100.0 1" 100.0 60 3/4" 100.0 Attorberg Limits 1/2" 100.0 PL= 14.7 LL= 27.7 PI= 13.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100.0 Coefficients #8 100.0 D90= 0.1675 D85= 0.1293 D60= 0.0557 #10 100.0 D50= 0.0451 D30= 0.0223 D15= 0.0025 #16 99.9 D10= Cu= Cc= #20 99.7 Classification #40 98.8 USCS= CL AASHTO= A -6(7) 460 96.5 #80 91.5 Remarks #100 87.7 Specific gravity Assumed #200 72.6 F.M =0.15 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -7 Depth: 7.5 Sample Number: U3 Date: 4/16/12 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Geotechnical GSI 1 Services, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee 10501 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 60322 15151210.5542 FAX 13151210.1911 Project No: 126026 Fiaure Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: lei 9i 7 W 5 Z LL Z 5 z w U LU a 4 3 2 1 Particle Size Distribution Report r Y 11111111111�r�iNilll�ll�IaIII�Ia1111a11111 PERCENT FINER 1 -1/2" 100.0 HI= 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 ■11111111■ 1/2" 99.0 D1,= 0.3011 3/8" 96.7 III■ 44 88.4 11111111 68.3 #10 ■IIIIIIII #l6 52.9 F.M =3.36 ■11111111 43.9 #40 23.8 ■IIIIIIII #60 11.8 #80 ■11111111■ #100 8.9 #200 III■ 11111111 ■1111111 ■IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■Illlllll■ III ■1111111 ■1111111�7111111I1 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII■ III ■111IIIII ■11111111Ell 1111111■IIIIIIII ■11111111 111■ 11111111 111111111 ■11111111111111111 ■11111111 111■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■111 1�11 ■11111111 ■11111111 111■1111111a�111111111 ■11,1r11a ■Illlllll ■1111111 III■ 11111111111111111 ■11111111�III�III11 ■IIIIIIII■ III■ 11111111■ 111111��il�lllll��di��11 ■:!�I!!1!■ %+3" Coarse 0.0 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER 1 -1/2" 100.0 HI= 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 0 1/2" 99.0 D1,= 0.3011 3/8" 96.7 Cc= 0.83 44 88.4 #8 68.3 #10 65.7 #l6 52.9 F.M =3.36 #20 43.9 #40 23.8 #60 11.8 #80 9.5 #100 8.9 #200 7.7 ., (no specification provmed) Source of Sample: T13 -7 Depth: 17.5 Sample Number: 55 °GSI� eal Services, inc. I MOrAumre Ave, Orbandale, 1AMM (6101¢fi.Or12 FAX(SIS M10t1 e"t Fine Silt Glad 41.9 16. 1 7 1 5.8 1.9 Material Description Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Project No: 126026 Tested By: JEW /JLH Checked By: Date: 3/12/12 Atterbgrg Limits PL= LL= HI= Coefficients D90= 5.1002 D85- 4,1825 D60= 1.5330 D50= 1.0601 Dap= 0.5259 D1,= 0.3011 DtO= 0.2041 Cu= 7.51 Cc= 0.83 Classification USCS= AASHTQ= Remarks Specififc Gravity Assumed F.M =3.36 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Project No: 126026 Tested By: JEW /JLH Checked By: Date: 3/12/12 /0 +3 Coarse .tedium I Fine Slit Clay D.0 0.0 10.0 48.3 23.2 1 13.4 SIEVE SIZE o o • r- s-vE.�.w• IIIIIIIaIIIll�igll��w ..�'�!�!I.111111IIIIIII ., 1" 100.1111 3/4" 100.0 30 1/2" 99.2 3/8" 99.2 #4 96.4 #8 95.2 010 94.9 #16 93.7 ■Illlilll #20 92.3 #40 ■11111111 #60 61.1 ■11111111 46.0 #100 42.0 ■1111111 #200 36.6 :,III 111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■1111111INllllllll ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■111111II�IIIIIlll1 .,111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIII ■1111111 ,111 ■IIIIIIIIMINIMUM `11111111111 1. ,111 IIIIIIII ■1 /1 /1111 ■l�lll�. � ■�ia�lll ,111■ IIIII111I1111�11 [111111 ■�.t,I��lps'�,111111�i ■i'll ■IIIIIIIIC�III�.�iA ■1111111 �11 '111 IUMM101111 OEM I I �IrMM 111111■MtL /0 +3 Coarse .tedium I Fine Slit Clay D.0 0.0 10.0 48.3 23.2 1 13.4 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER Aj 1 -1/2" 100.91 1" 100.1111 3/4" 100.0 30 1/2" 99.2 3/8" 99.2 #4 96.4 #8 95.2 010 94.9 #16 93.7 #20 92.3 #40 84.9 #60 61.1 #80 46.0 #100 42.0 #200 36.6 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: T3 -7 Depth: 27.5 Sample Number: S7 Material Description Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D90= 0.5521 D85= 0.4269 D60= 0.2448 D50= 0.2000 D80= 0.0409 D15= 0.0089 D10= 0.0023 Cu= 106.91 Cc= 2.98 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed RM =1.12 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: J1 W /JLH Checked By: MTL Date: 3/12/12 Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: MTL 11111111111�M1111�1� •rl�ilill�ilalllll ■IIIIIIII■ :; IIIIIIII 99.] ■IIIIIIII #40 98.0 ■IIIIIIII #60 95.5 ■IIa�1111 93.5 #100 ■il 11111 #200 88.5 :IIII■ IIIII 111 ■IIIIIII1�111111111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■II 1 IIIIIIII■ IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII■ .1111■ IIIIIIII■ IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIII� ■11111111■ IIII■ ■111111I1�111111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111■ . IIII ■1111111 ■IIIIIIII ■!1111 11111111�Illillll■ IIII ■111111 11■11111111 ■! IIII i1111111■u��Ill1.l1� IIII ■llllllllr ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII II III ■IIIIIIII ,111 IIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIII�!� ■III III ■I1111111■I111111■ now�_�® e SIEVE PERCENT " SIZE FINER 1 -112" 100. 1" 100. 3/4" 100.0 30 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100.0 I• #8 99.8 �.� •- •,� #10 99.8 • •�� 111 • #l6 99.6 • 420 • Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: MTL 99.] #40 98.0 #60 95.5 #80 93.5 #100 92.9 #200 88.5 Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: MTL ';1111III1111� � ��!!!I�11 ■I�III�IA1111a1111, :,III■ IIIIIIII ■1111i��1 ■1111111N■�1111111 III■ 11111111 ■IIIIIIII! ■1�111111�1II!IIII . . ,III ■11111111■1111111i ■11iIII1N ■1111111 ,11■ IIIIIIII ■11111111v1111111I ■1111111 ,11■ 11111111 Milli 1111ti1111111��11111111 ,111 mill 11111 ■11111111 ■01,11!1. �INR IN 111■ 11111111111111111 ■.,If;1�11A►��I11111 ,III ■11111111 ■11111111C��9�I111 ■1111111 It■ =111111 MM11110 OILJll ri�■IId1111 % +3 Coarse •e nAedium Fin, -o.-O-1 0.0 .8 61.1 6.8 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINE Or, 0 ' ^Et. (1. J) 1 -1/2" 100 Coefficients 1" 100. 0 1380- 1.5018 3/4" 100.0 Dly= 0.5652 D10= 0.4698 1/2" 95.9 Classification 3/8" 94.3 AASHTO= #4 88.2 #8 71.9 #10 69.0 #16 48.8 #20 31.5 #40 7.9 #60 2.8 #80 1.9 #100 1.7 #200 1.1 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -8 Depth: 17.5 Sample Number: S5 "GSIServic e Inc. 10616 Ma Ava. Urbentlalo, IA 11912 (6163 Maw FpR (516) ]iM11911 Silt 0.3 Material Description Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed P.M =3.74 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLH /JLW Checked By: Date: 3 -13 -12 Attayberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D90= 53181 Dgg= 4.091$ 1380- 1.5018 D50= 1.2080 D30= 0.8iA6 Dly= 0.5652 D10= 0.4698 Cu= 3.20 C� 0.9G Classification USCS= SP AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed P.M =3.74 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLH /JLW Checked By: Date: 3 -13 -12 100 90 80 70 W 60 Z E Z 50 W U W 40 (. 30 20 10 0 Particle Size Distribution Report IIIa11111� PERCENT FINER _ -I 1 -1/2" 100.0 I" n ll !MINIaIIIHa1�1111111 314" 100.0 1 /2" 95.5 3/8" 94.6 #4 91.7 ■Illllill■ #8 86.8 910 86.1 III #16 Nil IIIIII■ #20 81.9 #40 IIIIIIIi■lall_fl11 #60 74.5 #80 70.9 ■IIIIIIII 69.3 #200 64.6 ■IIIIIIII■ IIINil 1III 1N ■Illlllll ■Illlllll ■11111111 ■Illlil11M III ■IIIIIIII■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■Iix11111 ■ MINI 1■ ilimilillillo1ililill HIM NEI IN HillII IIIa111I1111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIII11�1MINI III ■III111II1■11111111 ■Illllp MINI I�� HIM 111111 II111111111I1 ■11111111■IiIii 11111 Nil 1 III■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ®��`��i1111111 : ■IIIIII III■ 11111111 ■11I1111,!�111�111�111111111 ■IIIIII , +3" Coarse .edium Flice Sik Clay 0.0 0.0 7.3 14.2 37.0 27.6 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER _ -I 1 -1/2" 100.0 I" 100.0 314" 100.0 1 /2" 95.5 3/8" 94.6 #4 91.7 #8 86.8 910 86.1 #16 83.3 #20 81.9 #40 78.8 #60 74.5 #80 70.9 #100 69.3 #200 64.6 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -8 Depth: 27.5 Sample Number: S7 GSIG�teohr�cal Servicea,Inc. 1950]Avpm Am UMWdale, IA503U (5is)Y40.6W,? FAX(916)27C -1 1 Material Description Atterbero Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefilcients D90= 3.7561 DgS= 1.6178 D80= 0.0513 D50= 0.0270 Dg0= 0 M 9 Di 5= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =1.17 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Project No: 126026 Tested By: ILW/JLH Checked By: MTL Date: 3 -13 -12 10( 9( Bf V W 61 M Z 51 U d 41 31 2i 1i Particle Size Distribution Report IIIIIIIIIII� ��Illi�l �Iplli�l� -- I 40 - -0Mt PL= 21.2 71/2" 100.gi Coefficients MY . VIII D80= 0.0205 3/4" ■1111111■ 30 D10= 1/2" 100.0 III 3/8" 100.0 ■11111111■ A -7 -6(29) #4 100.0 IIIIIIII 100.0 ■IIIIIIIA 100.0 #16 ■11111111 #20 993 ■IIIIIIII■ #40 97.6 III 96.4 ■11111111■ #80 94.2 #100 11111111 #200 ■III11111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII■ III■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■Illllll�i ■IIIIIIII■ 11 ■IIIIIIIN ■I111i111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII�IIIIIIII ■, 11■ 11111111■ 1111 III 1 ■IIIIIIIA�111111111�!I�11111■ III ■Il11i1I11■ 11111111 ■Il14 l�! �Illlllll ■Ili�ill�■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII�11111111 ■� ".��II�.��alilll ■1111111■ III■ IIIIIIII■ IIIIIIII 0 111 1p,i1111111u111111■Illlilll■ III�II111111■ 1II URN 1■IIIIi111�I1I11111�11111111 ,I_ GRAIN SIZE- Fines %+3" Coarse Mediam Fine Sitt C 0.0 O.D 2.4 5.6 56.7 35.3 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER A -- I 40 - -0Mt PL= 21.2 71/2" 100.gi Coefficients 1" 100.0 D866= 0.0463 D80= 0.0205 3/4" 100.0 30 D10= 1/2" 100.0 Classlitc ISD 3/8" 100.0 AASHTO= A -7 -6(29) #4 100.0 #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 99.7 #20 993 #40 97.6 #60 96.4 #80 94.2 #100 92.9 #200 92.0 " (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -9 Depth: 4 Sample Number: U2 GeotecMiaal GSIServlces,Inc. 16607Awors Ava. U,b dd,. IF66b66 16161Zi6.6643 FAX 161612MM1 Material Description Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =012 Client: HDR F,ngineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee V Tested By: JLHIRSA Checked By: Date: 4/10/12 AUerberg Limits PL= 21.2 LL= 49.6 P1= 28.4 Coefficients D90= 0.0626 D866= 0.0463 D80= 0.0205 D50= 0.0131 D30= 00029 D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classlitc ISD USCS= CH AASHTO= A -7 -6(29) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =012 Client: HDR F,ngineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee V Tested By: JLHIRSA Checked By: Date: 4/10/12 '; 11111111111�a�Nii [I�11 ■1�111�Ial�lla[III :, IIINIIIIIIII�IIIIIi�1i1�IIIIl11fl ■Illlill ,III ■II 11111 ■11111III�i� "lI1111111111i11 r .,III ■II IIIII ■IIIIIIII ■111�lIIN ■1111111 III■IIIIIIIN ■Illlllll ■IIIII�II ■1111111 . .,III ■IIIIIIIII ■Illlllll ■IIIII��111111111111 IIINllllllll ■IIIIIIII ■��Ililll ■1111111 ,1111111111111 ■IIIIIIII■ ,il[11A�II11111 ,III ■IIIIIIII ■11l[IIIIC��III I��III�IIII i III ■11111111 ■III[I� .! \�d�ll Il�ad��l X70 +3" Coarse ,iediurn Fine Sill CVay 0.0 0.0 39.9 36.9 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER 0 �) 1 -1/2" 100 1" 100. 30 314" 100.0 1 /2" 98.4 318" 97.7 #4 90,2 #8 84.7 #10 83.5 #16 78.6 #20 73.0 #40 43.6 #60 14.4 #80 8.4 #100 7.6 #200 6.7 Material Description Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D90= 4.6535 D85= 2.4504 Dgo= 0.5833 D50= 0.4760 D30= 0.3404 Dl5= 0.2542 D10= 0.2095 Cu= 2.78 Cc= 0.95 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M.-2.57 (no specification providcd) Source of Sample: TR -9 Depth: 12.5 Sample Number: SS Date: 3 -13 -12 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. ArN CT no ro a �. ei Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLH /JLW Checked By: MTL M ri Iw W W Particle Size Distribution Report %+3" I Coarsa O,D 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER a.. 0 -fM% �) 1 -1/2" too.0 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 ■!I�IIIII 1 /2" 100.0 ■IIIIIIII 3/8" 100.0 #4 ��lill'I11�1�111111 #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 100.0 #20 99.9 #40 99.7 ,,1111�111111� #60 99.3 #80 98.3 9100 97.5 #200 8T0 ■I1p�1111 ■IIIIIIII ■11111111■ IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII :,III IIIIIIII ■11 HIM 1 ■HIM IIIIHIM IN 11 ,III■ III■ 11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIR�1 ■1111111■ milli 1111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII■ ,III IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIII HIIIIIi ,III■ III■ IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIII.:��IIIIIIII �IIIlllll ll!I�I�1 , IIIIIIIIIIIIIMillII111■ 1i 11�1q►.�11111111■llli��.:�� „ ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII 1I!. "il ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIIIr ,III ll1■1I111111�111IIIl1�I1I11111M' 1111■IIIIIIII■�II11 %+3" I Coarsa O,D 0.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER a.. 0 -fM% �) 1 -1/2" too.0 1" 100.0 3/4" 100.0 0 1 /2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100.0 #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 100.0 #20 99.9 #40 99.7 #60 99.3 #80 98.3 9100 97.5 #200 8T0 (no specnmatlon proviaea) Source of Sample: TB -9 Depth: 22,5 Sample Number. 57 it Geoteehnical GSI Services. Tne. 1"07A ... I. Aw. W bOntlale, IA 50322 1516)210.6642 FAX (615) 210-1911 D.3 60.6 1 26.4 Material Description Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Coefficients D90= 0.0850 D85= 0.0695 D50= 0.0226 D30= 0.0064 D10= CU Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =0.03 Client: HDR Engineering, L1c. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLW /JLH Checked By: MTL 199 D60= 0.0325 1)15= Cc= Date: 3/12/12 Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: ' ;111�111111� glllll IglllN�o11�11111 ■1111 1111111111 ■1111 IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII■HIM ,III■ ■IIIIIIII ■11111111■ 11111111 ■111111111111111111 ,111 11111111■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII■ .,111■ ■11111111■ 11111111 ■1111111r ■111111'11 ,111111111111■ l ■ HIM ■ III ■1111 lla ■11111111 ■IIII111a�llllllN . , ■IIIII�.: � ■1111111 *��IIIIII■ ■IIg1111B ■IIIIIIII ,III �.!I_III■ IIIIIII111111�I11111111 ■11��I��11111111�t ■11111111■ 11111111 ■II1!.�i1R►�illlN Ilion ,III INN IN lllllfll ■11111111 ■�1111� .� ■11�.i ,111 =1LIM ® ., ... ., ... . ..;, . 0 ,. ,1 •� Tested By: JLH /RSA Checked By: 1D a 8 7 W E Z W U W 4 IL Particle Size Distribution Report 111�111111�11111��1�1111111Ii111 tterderg Limits ALL- PL= 16.3 34.4 PI= 18.1 Coefficients D9D= 0.0779 1)185= 0.0607 D6()= 0.0285 D50= 0.0211 DgO= 0.0089 ■IIIIIIII■ D10= CU= Cc= Classification USCS= CL AASHTO= A -6(15) 11111111■ Remarks Specific Gravity 11111111 RN =0.09 ■1111111I■IIaC,l111 ■11111111■ ,III■ III■ IIIIIIII ■Il11111 ■111111111111111111 ■IIIIIIII■ ■11111111 ■1111111 ■11111111 ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII■ ,III III■ 11111111■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■1111111�i ■11111111■ ■11111111■ IIIIIIII ■1111111N11111111111�i11111111■ ,III III■ 11111111■ 11111111 ■11III1� 811111111 ■ r II■ ■11111111 ■IIIIIIII ■11111111► ��IIIII ■1��11I� i11 ■11111111 ■1111111■■I11111IOld 1110 Illillllr ■gllllll� ■111! III�Ii111111�11111111,,, .III�IIIIIl1I %+3" 0.0 SIEVE SIZE 1 -vz" 1'• 3/4" U2" 3/8a #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #40 #60 #80 #100 #200 PERCENT FINER 00. 100. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.0 96.7 94.5 93.5 89.4 (no speciticatten provided) Source of Sample: TB -10 Depth: 7.5 Sample Number: U2 GS( \`1 I Geotectutieal Services, hie. I NO? Aurora Ave. uroanda e, MOM (616) 270A542 FAX Fine Silt 9.6 65.E Material Description 23.8 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLHlRSA Checked By: Date: 4/10/11 tterderg Limits ALL- PL= 16.3 34.4 PI= 18.1 Coefficients D9D= 0.0779 1)185= 0.0607 D6()= 0.0285 D50= 0.0211 DgO= 0.0089 DDS= D10= CU= Cc= Classification USCS= CL AASHTO= A -6(15) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed RN =0.09 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLHlRSA Checked By: Date: 4/10/11 O I • • • • - r III mill 111101110l1�r11011 11111 III■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■IiIIII1A ■111111 ,III■ 11111111 ■i1111111 ■11111111 ■1111 111 ., III■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■1111111N ■1111111 ,III ■II 111111 ■11111111 ■1111111N ■illllll, ., III■ I1i11111�11i111111 ■I111111N111111111 IIINHIM ■11111111 ■11 111111 ,1111111111111111111111 ■lily 1 1131111111 ■1111111 11■ ■11111111 Mill 1111! ■111 1.■�■u�ir11uMdn ■ ®11,iP4 ■■111111 /0 +3 Coarse � � — es .Aedium Flne Silt Clav a.o o.o L� l.z ]0.9 6a.4 19.5 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER —'M 1 -1 /2" 100.0 30 1" 100. OMN 3/4" 100.0 1 /2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100.0 W #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 99.8 #20 99.6 #40 98.8 #60 97.1 #80 94.8 #100 93.8 #200 87.9 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -10 Depth: 12.5 Sample Number: U3 Geotechnical GSISeMees,Inc. 108W Aurora AVe. Urbondale, IA 60322 161�F]a660Y FA %1616)2]0.19N Material Description Attee•6ero Wmlts PL= 20.8 LL= 37.7 PI= 16.9 Coefficients Dgp= 0.0831 D85= 0.0679 D60= 0.0379 D50= 0.0296 Dgp= 0.0132 Dlg= 0.0014 D10= Cu= C0= Classification USCS= CL AASHTO= A -6(15) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed p.M =0.09 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: JLHIRSA Checked By: MT[ Date: 4/16/12 Tested By: CP /JLH Checked By: MTL :; III■ IIIIII��IIII�I��Igll�lll ■11111111■ ■i1u11111 ■IIIIfi11■ 11111111 ■Illlf 111■II[I�III ■IIIIIIII :,III IIIIIIII ■11[11111 ■Illlfllll■Illllill ■IIIIIIII ,III■ ■II[ 11111■ 11111111 ■IIIiI11A ■11111111 ■IIIIIl11■ .,III ■i111f lIl■ 11111111 ■11111111 ■I1111111�11111l11■ ,11 11■ IIIIIIIII�II[ IIIII ■1111111AIIIIIIIIIIi�lIIIIIII ., ■11111111■ 1111 1111 ■Illlll��I��IIIII ■Iii�1111 ,III IIII■1111111Ii■allli111 ■IIIli 11111f111111 ■IIIIIIII■ III ■IIlI11I1�11[III111 ■Illlf IIi111111111 ■11111111■ . III�IIIIIIIN■ �111f1I1 ■11111111�1111fl11�IIIIIlI1 ®� !1 .. scription ,� too. : ,, Atterberg Limits #4 100.0 Coefficients ,0. . . 99.5 qjAgLification .. : 98.5 Remarks - „ .: Assumed 20 9 . . Source Depth: Date: I.Fin .: --. - 126026 Flour Tested By: CP /JLH Checked By: MTL 10( 91 81 7. W 61 Z 5i uJ U W 41 a 31 2 1 Particle Size Distribution Report 1111111I111� a111I�1��1�111111 - I 40 - "CE. d 100.0 IV l" ■11111111 3/4" 100.0 ■11111111■ 1/2" 100.0 III 100.0 ■11111111■ #4 100.0 #8 IIIIIIII #10 ■IIIIIIII #16 100.0 ■I11r�111 #20 99.9 ■IIIIIIII■ #40 99.4 #60 III ■IIIIII11l■Illlllll 98.0 #100 97.2 #200 91.5 ■IIIIIIII ■111[1111 ■11111111■ III ■ IIIIIIII■ III II ■IIIIIIII ■1II1111 MilliI■ III■ IIIIIIII■ IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■111111111 ■11111111 111Milli IIIII ■IIIII111 ■11I11111■IIIIIl11 i111111II III■IIIIIII 1111 ■18111 11 ■11111111 ■11111111■ 11INIIIIIIIIM 1111111 ■�., »�11 ■IIIIIIII ■iiihlll11- III■ 11111111■ 11111III�IIII!.�ifl■ii111111 ■IIIIIIII II■■, 11111111■ 11111111 ■II111111m11111111oIIIlIl1 in ° /0 +3^ Coarse es eedium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.9 67.8 23.7 SIEVE WE PERCENT FINER - I 40 - "CE. d 100.0 IV l" 10U. 3/4" 100.0 30 1/2" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 #4 100.0 #8 100.0 #10 100.0 #16 100.0 #20 99.9 #40 99.4 #60 98.9 #80 98.0 #100 97.2 #200 91.5 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TS -11 Depth: 7.5 Sample Number: U2 GSIGeotechnical Services. Inc. 10007AUMM AVG. Urbandale, IA 60322 )616)27P0642 FAX (616) 274-1911 Material Description Atterbero Limits PL= 15.8 LL= 38,5 PI= 22.7 Coefficients D90= 0.0662 D85= 0.0490 D60= 0.0247 D50= 0.0207 D30= 0.0092 D13= D10= Cu= CC= Classification USCS= CL AASHTO= A -6(20) Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =0.04 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Tested By: .ILHIRSA Checked By: Date: 4/10/12 re �, III ■IIIIII� � ' n,!!!11� ■11111111111111111 IIIMIME 1■IMill II 11111111■IIlilll III ■IIIII111i�111I1111 ■1a�11111 ■1111111 4 ,III■ IIIIIIII ■11111111 ■111E MINIM I11 mill IIIII ■11111111 ■011111 ■IIIIIIII III■ MIIIII�1�1111111 ■Illllll !111111111 ,III ■IIIIIIII ■1111!111 ■��III ■II�IIII ,1111111IIIIIa�111111111 ■.11110 IION ,111 ■IIIIIIII ■I I111111V '3111111 1111111111111 r 111■ IIIIIIII ■11111.! \�e�.�III�IIIIIII yIV \BY JILL — 111111. %Gr %Sand % Fines /0 +g Coar a .+tedium Fine Sin Clay se 010 0.0 30.2 31.3 18,5 8.8 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT a. FINER �CEI. 1 -112" 100 - " 100. 3/4" 00.0 t /2" 94.0 318" 94.3 #4 91.5 #8 89.4 #10 88.8 #16 84.8 #20 79.1 #40 58.6 #60 42.8 #80 353 #100 33.0 #200 27.3 - (nu specification provided) Source of Sample: TB -11 Depth: 22.5 Sample Number: SS Material Description Atterbern Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D90= 2.9625 DgS= 1.2017 060= 0.4433 D50= 0.3214 D30= 0.1047 D15= 0.0192 D30= 0.0075 Cu= 5934 Cc= 3.31 lassification USCS= C AASHTO= Remarks Specific Gravity Assumed F.M =1.89 Date: 3 -13 -12 Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. GSIGeoreoluilcal Project: Taft Speedway Levee services. Inc. 10607AUmra Ave. Urbandale, IA 50322 (61512904642 FAX I516) 2704"1 Project No. 126026 F[ Ore Tested By: JLH /JLW -- Checked By: m Y v L u rl- d N d 0 I\ y N NE � N \ • N N Z' A 9 \ \ C _ O ya \ E �+ a = m a z � a • • .wwwr■....ww. , .w1 .wwrn w...ww.. www... w1w�rw. ....■ ■■ME......■ OMEN ■ ■MNMaME ■N■■■■■■ • NONE MEN MEMO■■■ . M■■■ ■ ■ONNI ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ m Y v L u rl- d N d 0 I\ y N NE � N \ • N N Z' A 9 \ \ C _ O ya \ E �+ a = m a z � a m Y v L u rl- d N d m a Y V L v A m V N F ��'1" �J.� a y� � O x � r y � F EN � O � i J O �" 16 c a �w �. J � � � � Li �a a � S o v a � � � ' j E v = d � z v � a � � ��'ll' �I'1" . ■ . �� r��J� �iiiii�i��iiiii�iiiii . �■i��ii�i�"ii�iiii ■' ■'■ . ■ ■..■ �. ■C ■�.v... ■■ - _ .. 1'1,111,1,1,1111111 � . • Q�� m a Y V L v A m V N F �J.� a y� � O x � r y � F EN � O � i J O �" 16 c a �w �. J � � � � Li �a a � S o v a � � � ' j E v = d � z v � a � � m a Y V L v A m V N F m d r .,; r, d N I- ■iiii�ii�iiiiiii�iiiii - � 11111111111111111111_ . ii ■iiiiii ■iii ■ ■i ■ ■ii . . 11111111111111111111 t moll. m d r .,; r, d N I- m d Y U v r U v m a+ w v f- - iiiii��i lsi�9■��ii� - , loss a m ■■■isom EMMEMMIM SOME OMEN ■NO� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ L MOON■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ - 0000 loss ■ ■ ■s ■ ONIONS ■■■■■ • ■ ■ ■■ ■Ell ■ milli ■milli ,• . Eno rNN ■NM■■ ■E ■O■■■■■ . NO MEN moommomm 0 ■IN million ■I1 0 los■O m d Y U v r U v m a+ w v f- m d d L v v 0 = 011111 \ T\ o \ N a� w \ 111111 d Z` m \ C \ � J E a y a \ E a= v .. L d N ❑ J ■ ■ 3! ■ i i ii t ■■Else ■■■■■R■■■■■■■■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■villoo ■ ■■ ■1111 ■ ■ ■■ ■1111■■■■■■ _ MEMO i ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ .. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ moll ■ ■ ■■ ■ Iloilo ■ ■ ■ ■ ■. - m d d L v v 0 \ T\ o \ N a� w \ � d Z` m \ C \ � J E a y a \ E a= v .. L d N ❑ J m d d L v v m Y U d L A m a m Y d 0 \ d Eo � \ \ J v \ 5w \ � 9 ut \ \ a � � o \ m a s m . L m � a o � • \fir - ��l��r,I�� -..w' ,AML .�WLAMMwr■ww w�wwwr■w. ■�. ■ ■ ■ ■a.■■■■ C ..■ ■ ■ .■.....■.... : loss ■■::::- ■m:■■■■: NOEM ■t ■N ■t■ ■a■■■■■ ■■_ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ • ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■- ilill NONE ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■E■�� ■ ■ ■ ■ moll ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■, Iloilo - m Y U d L A m a m Y d 0 \ d Eo � \ \ J v \ 5w \ � 9 ut \ \ a � � o \ m a s m . L m � a o � m Y U d L A m a m Y d Y N L i' L d N d oil 118111 X 0 111111 y� 0 x � �r \ a � A v L y R Q \ • �+ N Ey \ 1 ee \ \\ > o x 1 C \ r \ \ 1 A 1 1 - - `■wwwwww�ww�iii� i =■�i�iiw■�ii - wiiii�ii��wwww wwwww . - wwwwwww�■ �wwwwwwww _ iiiiiiii■oiwiiiyiiiii iiiiiii�i�■�77�iiiiiii ' r t■o■■l "W;■■■i:■EME ■■■■ .s....6...om........ • i 11111111111111111111 . ■■■■■■m ■om■m■■■■ ■■■■ l■■■■m■ol■■■■■om s■■ 111„1"11'11,111111 .. . • i Y N L i' L d N d � �r \ a � A v L y R Q Y N L i' L d N d m Y d L T m a m w v 0 0 \ \ ro= J � \ a� N c N \ J \ \ , C O � d 1111' a- v c a .n roa 0 0 lYb • MMMmMM�I d!. �MML mmmmwwm MMMMMMW' AFAIM! AM= rrMirhFMr MmmmmM� IIAlI "�MLAMMMIrAmm mm■mi■�ir■r� �s■mmo ■..' ■■.■■■ ■�.�■C... ■ ■►... ' ■■■: I� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■11■■■ ■ ■ ■\�■ ■ somom ■umom _ long ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ilmom • MEN ■r■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ . ■ son ■■g ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ' 0000■ m Y d L T m a m w v 0 0 \ \ ro= J � \ a� N c N \ J \ \ , C O � d a- v c a .n roa 0 0 m Y d L T m a m w v Li a W LL� V/ W I-- CO) L J IL cl a Or J I I I X30NI A' w e Immmmmmmml V V V V V 1N31N00U31VM �Mvl 0 O J J � e Z 0 0 r ppF D� O n C7 0 J d o O 4 O O 6 U �e R� y5�s N V�gCX u O Qy, ^ 7 Q ;yam( V ^�N r v Y s U a N = z m 161 t5 a` a` F- x \ \ N � y \ \ O R J a� R � N \ u � \ C � \ -a° R c = E � v . r d � O j ` I I I X30NI A' w e Immmmmmmml V V V V V 1N31N00U31VM �Mvl 0 O J J � e Z 0 0 r ppF D� O n C7 0 J d o O 4 O O 6 U �e R� y5�s N V�gCX u O Qy, ^ 7 Q ;yam( V ^�N r v Y s U a N = z m 161 t5 a` a` F- _ oil • • ■ ■!■■!!!ML 4MMMliiiWli! ■■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�� _ ■■ ■ ■■■■ i ■ ■■ ■ ■.y. ■■ _ No s■■ ■■ • ■loss ■�I■.■■■■■■N■■■■ • ■,■,■I■■■N„■I■,■■, •• ■■lr ■■I■n■II■II■■■ _ ■ ■r■.■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■. .. .. . . .... . . .. . . .... . . ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ oo��r m a Y d L I t m 0 0 J x J N \ \ O m \ ) O n ry J •. w \ � u � o 0 a ro= v . G y Q m a Y d L I t m m a Y u v r Lai m v a� f- J a :J x \ \ r N � N - Eo \ N \ ♦ ,J N E J �a \ - c \ 0 a° 'E V a L a N C o a h, • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■fi�i��i0 ■��OMEN ■ ■��Iill��NONE ■ ■■ - IN IBM NONNI III III 11L��11�1111111111_ �■No��mommommumm. loss 111111 „1,1'11"1,111,11" m a Y u v r Lai m v a� f- J a :J x \ \ r N � N - Eo \ N \ ♦ ,J N E J �a \ - c \ 0 a° 'E V a L a N C o a m a Y u v r Lai m v a� f- O IL w w F- CO w F- LJ r a Z V J X�aN�a 0 0 0 :2 0 ti 0 �a J 0 m 0 0 0 Aim = ====== =mmaomm::w» -- M■EM &ME M MEMEMEM■M 't'1„'111111„1"„ ANIINOO a31HM O m O LU W in z z U �au �u £e m m a Y V v t �u S, ro r F 2 O J y> — O x I\ \ \ m � N E o \ \ a �o- a dr m \\ ac c � 0 a = E a= mt sm X�aN�a 0 0 0 :2 0 ti 0 �a J 0 m 0 0 0 Aim = ====== =mmaomm::w» -- M■EM &ME M MEMEMEM■M 't'1„'111111„1"„ ANIINOO a31HM O m O LU W in z z U �au �u £e m m a Y V v t �u S, ro r F ANIINOO a31HM O m O LU W in z z U �au �u £e m m a Y V v t �u S, ro r F 11 E tin 0 Dial Reading vs. Time Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: TB -1 Sample No.: ui Elev. /Depth: 2.5 0211 LED Load 0M 790 Load #3 250 per 500 psf 0213 C, @120 min= �� C�,g 1'53 mil= 1.748.2ld \ 1.36II.21da ,0215 I .02� 0217 m66 -- .9218 c' � � mn= b 0221 ,0265 a a c ozEa 1 ° S I :U (12x6 .0227 ozza .02310.1p 9.76 159 226 6.7 7'30 .0260 dT5 i.50 7 376 4.60 275 & STS 4.50 2fi fl00 8.75 7.50 Square Root of Elapeed T Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.) LUMM 111IMEL111111 MUM NINON q INEME m 0 0 MINEMEN IN 111111111110111111111 IN IN 0 Square Root of Ela ?sed Time (min) Square Rom o! Elapsed Time (min.) GS T Geotechnical Services, Inc. 1 10607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 50322 (515) 270 -6542 Figure Dial Reading vs. Time Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: TB-i Sample No.: ui Elev. /Depth: 2.5 0 ON kil MEMO MEN LM imommo NONE E c W K N � No INN NONE 0 moinommom 9 09- COME ONE OEMG 0 Square Root of Elapsed N Square Roof of Elapsed Time (min.) SAME WE ME oil NONE A R Isom MENEM ON O -so m � ONE .:Emllmmmmmmmm 0 1.00kimmommol M. 'MMIMMOMMIME rJ•l Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.) Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.) C T MlGox Geotechnical Services, Inc. 10607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 50322 (515) 270.6542 Figure rJ•l Dial Reading vs. Time Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: TB -1 Sample No.: u1 Elev. /Depth: 2.5 . loommolm� on 0 1 p 0 ENO ME M 0 Square Root of Filaosed I Square Root of Elapaea TIME (min.) 1 6 ct: Ta ee :TB-1 Qlf Geotechnical Services, Inc. G 1 10607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 5D322 (515) 270 -6542 Figure 1 I IN r 0 Ell 41101- Us Speeific Gravity Assumed Dial Reading vs. Time Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: TB-5 Sample No.: u2 Elev. /Depth: 4 01678 •�1� Load N4 il■ ■ ■ ■■1111► 500 sf 500 Re 793 psf 01041 Cv ®1.27 min= 02221 C,@1.27 min= 1. a a.2faa ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■111\1 1.5s a ?r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ OIB58 1 .02468 .01691 .02271 - �.01Ole =W S � d °n .01941 ° 0232 rc m tt _ ° .01888 01991 =16 �. Di D204 U_ '2107's 225 7A0 6.46 4.50 HgS 6�q 675 7,50 'M "60.00 Q75 tA0 275 7.00 A75 450 5.25 6.00 876 7.50 Square R.WCEIap$'ATlme {JeedH /Let Oquara Root of Elapsed Time (min) rB IN MEMO E MIN oil ONE ON ME ONE MIN No No 0 id w o INUMME w 0 0 Square Root of Elapsed Tlme (min.) Square Root M Elapsed Time (min,) GC T Geotechnical Services, Inc. ►�71 10607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 50322 (515) 270 -6542 Figure il■ ■ ■ ■■1111► ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■111\1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■�� Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: TB-5 Dial Reading vs. Time Sample No.: u2 Elev. /Depth: a tact SEEM 0 N 010 mom Nil NEON s IS g m s m rr � o 9 ° ME No so MOM No 1111111111 MORE soup Square Root of Elapsed Tme (I Square Root of Elapsed Trcna (min.) ENE I� ■iii ■ ■ ■ ■■ no I MEMO MEMO mill Elm m No Nis ME m M1 0 No V ME o F NMI 0 ME! No EN Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.) Square Roal of Elapsed T me (,,in,) Geotechnical Services, Inc. GST 10607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 60322 (515) 270 -6542 Figure I� ■iii ■ ■ ■ ■■ , :.,■ F Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: T13-5 1. Dial Reading vs. Time Sample No.: u2 Elev. /Depth: a $rl.. Root of Elapsed T arce: i -5 u. 4V 1 S le Nou Figure �1 ■I ■t ■N■■■ „ !EMEM M■■ ■AIMM■■■■■■ mills ■E■■INNE ■010M■M■■■■ ,. $rl.. Root of Elapsed T arce: i -5 u. 4V 1 S le Nou Figure ORION! I 11i 1 11 11!!1111 IF 11,45 11 11 216 1111111t I 1 0 MIND let Pr . oject N6. 126026' lent; HDR Engineering, Inc. Project: Taft Speedway Levee Specific Gravity Assumed RGSI Geotechnical Services, Inc. 10607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, A 50322 (6115) 270-6642 Figl. MEN so NONE MENEM so No MEMNON MEN M NOMINEE 0 0 am ONE um are ENO No VZ ONES 0 MENEM 1111 IL ME MEMO mmmm moimmmm No ME ME IN aim 0 MINN 00 KRONE MEN MINE WHEN ON on OEM oil No ME 0 :,Nolmmmm MEIN EWEN are ■■■■■■■■ Dial Reading vs. Time Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: TB-7 Elev. /Depth: 2.5 ONE i MEN I MEN 11111 101 MEN fi v� 6 O � AM Square Root of Elapsed Tma(I Sq o Rod of Elapsed Tima(min,) 1 inwiissillimm ■ ■III \� ■' 0 � ■ ■ ■i ,..` 0 slim Square Rool of Elapsed Tlmo (mm. 'J, FFWj Gqx C T Geotechnical Services, Inc. 10607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 60322 (516) 270 -6542 Figure ■ ■III \� ■' � ■ ■ ■i ,..` �i mill I�IN m1k I% NOR �' d WON W�Llr= Remarks: with organic matter p ific Gravity Assumed Figure Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: Ts -10 Dial Reading vs. Time Elev. /Depth: 12.5 02M 00 L6aa 42 250 psf .9285 C I� 1.24 min. 9.2 /de 0288 1 .68 mimmoommom 0273 momm�oom 6299 rc 5 ME MEMO ¢ I O a a 610 M NONE NONE .629$ mom 0299 \ W6q .0368696 6.73 4.56 Z 3.00 3.7b 5.25 606 &75 7.59 Square Rp01 of Elapxtl Tme (mirt) ON C `- c° — SEEM mom ¢ 5 o ON K T mmisom mom' „ SEEM M Squaze Rootof Elapsed Tlme mint Squaa Roolof Elapsed Tene(mn) ra �Q1 Geotechnical Services, Inc. 10607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 50322 (515) 270.5542 Figure „ Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: TB-10 Dial Reading vs. Time Elev. /Depth: 12.5 .061 100 Load us .057 bo Load H6 1293 psf 1880 psf .063 C, 2.30 min= .059 Ca ®4.11 min.° 0.4601 0.95 R. ` n5 .071 0.97 o73 \ 05B .075 S S s m min. $ .001 C of c .003 o 006 .067 .088 0716.00 075 1.90 225 3.00 T. 4, WT5-75-72rC a.00 6175 '�T a80 0.76 7.50 2 3.07 9.76 4 5.25 W Square Roof of Elapsed Tole (m Square Roo\ of Elapsed Thne (min) r 0a3 Mo MIN 035 .087 _ ea, Lit M 10 Nommoom IM ME ME sommomm o .009 .097 ME 089 ON 07 NO AM 0.75 1. °.1a ''.A8 .ENEENENNNE _ _ _ Square Roof of Elapsed Time (min.) Square Root of Elapsed Time (mini R Geotechnical Services, Inc. I 1 1 0607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 60322 (615)270.6542 Figure rc 0 Project No.: 126026 Project: Taft Speedway Levee Source: TB -10 GSI Dial Reading vs. Time 6866 psf a 2 24 min.= °m m rc m 0 All 463 psf 12M min= Elev. /Depth: 12.5 Geotechnical Services, Inc, 10607 Aurora Ave. Urbandale, IA 50322 (5151 270.6542 Time (min.) 12732 p5£ Figure Triaxiai U -U Stress /Strain Curves Project; Taft Speedway Levee - Iowa Ci , IA - #126026 Job; Client; Geotechrlical Services, Inc Date: emarks: Specimens trimmed to given sizes; Allowed to adjust under applied confining pressures for about 10 mir 1 G N a 1 --�- 0 2 4 6 8 0 Axial Strap 12 -- �1- Sample #: I � A. I u 6 _ H b d � i I 11.9 psi Sample Type: 8T Dla. (in) 2,88 M. (In) 5.92 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.00 W3.— _ —- i Strain at Failure ( %): 14.4 Canning Pressure: 11.0 psi e 'SC. ( %) 27.6 1 Sketch of Specimen Aker ject ncf): 97.2 Failure 1 t I lies; 1 --�- 0 2 4 6 8 0 Axial Strap 12 -- �1- Sample #: I � A. I u 6 _ H b d � i I 8389 Baring: Tl Depth: 12.5 -14 Sample #: 3 Soil Type: Lean Claywlsand grading into Sandy Lean 4.09 Clay w /pockuls of Silly sand (U) Strain Rate (in/min): 0.050 11.9 psi Sample Type: 8T Dla. (in) 2,88 M. (In) 5.92 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.00 Max Deviator Stress: 6.0 psi Strain at Failure ( %): 14.4 Canning Pressure: 11.0 psi e 'SC. ( %) 27.6 1 Sketch of Specimen Aker ject ncf): 97.2 Failure Ncim 20 Boring: Sample #: a-- Soil Type: I I f L 2 I 1 6 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 0 2 4 6 a 10 12 14 16 18 20 Axial Strain (a) OIL 2401 West 66th Street NGINEERING TESTING, INC. TB -2 Depth: 2.5 -4 1 Sand Strain Rate (inlmin): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T Dla. (in): 1.93 HL (in): 4.09 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.12 Max Deviator Stress: 11.9 psi Strain at Failure (%): 6.0 £.nnfininn Pressure: 2.7 081 W.C.( %): 15.4 Sketch or Specimen Ati Y d (pcf): 105.0 Failure 7 Richfield, MN 55423 Project: Client: Remarks: Specimens 18, �- 16 14 12 .N m N 10 v N N B N 6 0 4 21 e 0 e 7 6 a6 w N N N 4 N 0 b 3 v A 2 1 04 0 Triaxial U -U Stress /Strain Curves Taft Speedway Levee - Iowa Ci IA - #126026 Job: Geotechnical Services, Inc Date: iven sizes; Allowed to adjust under applied confining pressures for about 10 mil 1 -I tri 1- �_ 2 4 6 4 8 10 10 Axial walk IL y 1 JI T-1-T I_�. -1 1- + -1 -4- + I I I! I f 1 2 4 6 a 10 12 14 16 18 Axial Strain ($) OIL 2401 west 66th Street NGINEERING TESTING, INC. Boring: TB -8 Depth: 4 -5.5 Sample #: 2 Soil Type: Lean Clay w /sand (CL) Strain Rate ftnlmin): 01050 Rate (in /min): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T Dia. (In) 289 Ht. (In) 5.97 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.07 to Diameter Ratio: 2.06 Max Deviator Stress: 15.5 psi Max Deviator Stress: 7.6 psi Strain at Failure ( %): 20.0 Strain at Failure (%): 7.5 Confining Pressure: 4.0 psi W.G. 11 21.5 Sketch of Specimen After oject:I (Pcfl: 184.3 I Failure nl: 20 Boring: T6 -10 Depth: 12.5 -14 Sample #: 3 Soil Type: Organic Clay (CH) Strain Rate (in /min): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T Die. ( In): 1.94 HL (in): 3.9 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.06 Max Deviator Stress: 7.6 psi Strain at Failure (%): 7.5 Confining Pressure: 11.0 psi W.C. (%): 46.1 Sketch of Specimen After Yd (pcf): 73.2 Failure Richfield, MN 55423 Triaxial U -U Stress /Strain Curves Project: Taft Speedway Levee - Iowa City, IA - #126026 Client: Geoteehrlleai Services, Inc ^emarks: Specimens trimmed to given sizes; Allowed to adjust under applied confining pressures 9 I— fi —I— t 1 —__ ..I 4 N 3 2 6 I I 1 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Axial Strain (B) Ao L 35 —r- _- '° I I I <-:-- 7 ye 0 T- — 0 11 �--� 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Axial Strain 0) OIL 2401 West 66th street NGINEERING TESTING, INC. ,Bering: TB10 -2 Sample #: Soil Type: Job: 8389 Date: 4/1611 10 minutes. Depth: 7.5 -9 UU6 Strain Rate (inlmin): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T Dla. (in) 2,87 Ht. (in) 5.98 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.09 Max Deviator Stress: 8.20 psi Strain at Failure ( %): 9.20 confining Pressure: 6.30 psi w.C.( %) 26.3 Sketch of Specimen After V 'not): 96.5 Failure Project. lieni 'n. '<s: —' 8 Boring: TB11.1 Depth: 2.5 -4 Sample #: UU7 Soil Type: Lean Clay w /sand and organic ma Strain Rate (in/min): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T ❑ia. (in): 2.87 HI. (in): 5.98 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.08 Max Deviator Stress: 35.15 psi Strain at Failure ( %): 8.36 Conlinino Pressure: 2.70 Dal W.C. ( %): 25.3 Sketch 01 Specirnur, Al Yd (pcf): 97.4 Failure f Richfield, MN 55423 6 I I L I_I_1 —I I I L 35 —r- _- '° I I I <-:-- 7 ye 0 T- — 0 11 �--� 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Axial Strain 0) OIL 2401 West 66th street NGINEERING TESTING, INC. ,Bering: TB10 -2 Sample #: Soil Type: Job: 8389 Date: 4/1611 10 minutes. Depth: 7.5 -9 UU6 Strain Rate (inlmin): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T Dla. (in) 2,87 Ht. (in) 5.98 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.09 Max Deviator Stress: 8.20 psi Strain at Failure ( %): 9.20 confining Pressure: 6.30 psi w.C.( %) 26.3 Sketch of Specimen After V 'not): 96.5 Failure Project. lieni 'n. '<s: —' 8 Boring: TB11.1 Depth: 2.5 -4 Sample #: UU7 Soil Type: Lean Clay w /sand and organic ma Strain Rate (in/min): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T ❑ia. (in): 2.87 HI. (in): 5.98 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.08 Max Deviator Stress: 35.15 psi Strain at Failure ( %): 8.36 Conlinino Pressure: 2.70 Dal W.C. ( %): 25.3 Sketch 01 Specirnur, Al Yd (pcf): 97.4 Failure f Richfield, MN 55423 Boring: TB11.1 Depth: 2.5 -4 Sample #: UU7 Soil Type: Lean Clay w /sand and organic ma Strain Rate (in/min): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T ❑ia. (in): 2.87 HI. (in): 5.98 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.08 Max Deviator Stress: 35.15 psi Strain at Failure ( %): 8.36 Conlinino Pressure: 2.70 Dal W.C. ( %): 25.3 Sketch 01 Specirnur, Al Yd (pcf): 97.4 Failure f Richfield, MN 55423 W.C. ( %): 25.3 Sketch 01 Specirnur, Al Yd (pcf): 97.4 Failure f Richfield, MN 55423 iriaxial U -U Stress /Strain Curves Project: Taft Speedway Levee - Iowa Ctfy, IA - #126026 Job: 8389 Client: Geotechnical Services, Inc Date: 4111/12 Remarks: Specimens trimmed to given sizes; Allowed to adjust under applied confining pressures for about 10 minutes. 9 a 3 m u e 2 A 1 a U 1 0.9 O.B I I X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 i l Im 2 4 6 8 10 1 Axial Straw t —I— — - 0 . 7 - - - -' -- - a0.6 _ —J Strain Rate (In /min): 0.050 I Sample Type: 3T Dia. (in) 2.88 HL (In) 5.96 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.07 r V -- T — r b — 'N.C. ( %) 38.5 a — I Fallure 0.2 L- a1 - --_ —.� �— a 0 2 4 4-- 'W- 78 -11 Depth: 7.5 -9 Sample #: Soil Type: Lean Clay w /organic material (CVOL) Strain Rate (In /min): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T Dia. (in) 2.88 HL (In) 5.96 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.07 r V -- T — r -T —I — 'N.C. ( %) 38.5 _I 'lpcf): I Fallure —I- L- A I... 6 B 10 12 14 16 1s Axial Strain (9) 20 20 Boring: 78 -11 Depth: 7.5 -9 Sample #: Soil Type: Lean Clay w /organic material (CVOL) Strain Rate (In /min): 0.050 Sample Type: 3T Dia. (in) 2.88 HL (In) 5.96 Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.07 Max Deviator Stress: 5.0 psi Strain at Failure ( %): 8.4 Confining Pressure: 6.3 psi 'N.C. ( %) 38.5 Sketch of Specimen After 'lpcf): 81.8 Fallure Baring: Depth: Sample #: Soil Type: Strain Rate (inlmin): Sample Type: Did. (in): HL (in): Height to Diameter Ratio: Max Deviator Stress: Strain at Failure ( %): W.C. Yd (1 OIL 2401 West 66th Street NGINEERINC, Richfield, MN 55423 TESTING, INC. s Isf 1g #: Type: 0.25 C.z 9 0. 15 N a 0,: 0 ° 0.05 0 1.4 y 1,2 2 1 N 0.8 n i 0.9 0 0.2 0 4.5 4.0 0 3.5 3.0 2.5 N 2.0 1.5 1.0 0 001 � 1 N O t (/1 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767 Tat Speedway Levee • Iowa City, L4 - #126026 TB -7 Sample #: Type: 3T Depth (ft): 7.5 -9 Sandy Silty Clay (CL -ML) 5 10 1 Axial Strain I 0 1 2 Normal Stress (p'} (tsf) Rupture Envelope at Failure a= 29.8 ° a= 0.0 (tsf) 2401 W 661h street Job No. 8389 Date: 4120/12 Angle of internal friction, V = 30 0 ApparenS Coheslon, c' = 0.02 (ts10 Test Date: 415112 Liquid Limit: Test Type: Cu within Plastic Limit: Strain Rate (in /min): 0.00148 Plasticity Index: Strain Rate (%/min): 0.050 Spec. Gravlty (Assumed): 2.68 Effifore CansWldation A B C D E Diametergn) 1.43 1.43 1.44 Height(ln) 2.9 2.96 2.96 Water Content ( %) 24.6 22.7 22.2 Dry Densiry(pcf) 9B.3 99.6 99.2 Vold Ratio 0.70 0.68 0.69 After Consolidatl •(tn} 1,48 1.42 1.40 evee • .,1 296 2.88 2,95 on" . 25,5 24.5 25.0 o �Si y Clay GO M - 99.3 101,0 100.2 Rah., 0.68 0.88 0.67 F Pressureltatr 5.8 5.8 5.8 jss (td) 0.28 0.45 0.58 dtress (teO 0.57 0.89 1.41 41ma,. .tor Stress (Isf) 0.57 0.93 1.41 Si, ess at Fallure(tell fl.53 0.78 1.12 fAsx. Pu,- rressure Buildup (tsf) 0.13 0.21 0.21 m 3 Pressure Parameter'8" 1.0 1.01 1.01 1 L ��'��1°°°ggg'''4 Pct. Axial Strain at Failure 10.1 5.4 6.11 1 2 oese test results are for informational purposes only and must be roviewerl by qualified professlonal engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are X appropriate for any particular design' - I- effiffks: Ffed(al drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured 0. Fj" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and p. nedlately sheared, 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 Normal Stress (tsf) .. -.- -.. Effective (': 34.9 0 c'= 0.02 (tst) Total q: 28.8 ° C. 0.00 (ESf) OIL fNG Richteld, Minnesota 554232031 SITING, INC. f � .r I 0 0 1 2 3 4 Normal Stress (tsf) .. -.- -.. Effective (': 34.9 0 c'= 0.02 (tst) Total q: 28.8 ° C. 0.00 (ESf) OIL fNG Richteld, Minnesota 554232031 SITING, INC. Soring #: Soil Type: 0.25 0.2 0.15 N a 0.1 0 0.05 0 1.6 1.4 =1.2 N 1 d �o.a `a 0.6 m a 0.4 41 °0.2 0 4.5 4.0 0 3.5 R 3.0 m 2.5 a 2.0 1.5 1 0 C Q 1 (ai N m y G K 0 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: n 4767 Taft Speedway Levee - Iowa City, IA - #126026 TB -7 Sample #: Type: 3T Depth (ft): 7.5 -9 Sandy Silty Clay (CL -ML) 0 5 10 �Y0 Axial Strain N' 1 2 Normal Stress (p') (taf) Rupture Envelope at Failure a= 26.9 ° a= 0.0 (tell 2401 W 661h Street Angle of IN Apparen Cl Test Data: 415112 Test Type: Ol w/pp Strain Rate (in/min): 0.00148 Strain Rate (%hnin): 0,050 Before Consofl a n Diameler On Height (In: Water Content I% ■ Dry Density (pct old Rati( After Consolidati0 fin - IOwa Sal CIA Clay (CL (w.s Job No. 8389 Date: 4/20112 n, 4 = 44 n n, c' = 0.03 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: Ni tt r ' 4 ON WMF U -XK UAa U.Ot! 0.57 0.03 1.41 0.57 0.03 1.41 0.57 0.03 1.41 0 5 10 �Y0 Axial Strain N' 1 2 Normal Stress (p') (taf) Rupture Envelope at Failure a= 26.9 ° a= 0.0 (tell 2401 W 661h Street Angle of IN Apparen Cl Test Data: 415112 Test Type: Ol w/pp Strain Rate (in/min): 0.00148 Strain Rate (%hnin): 0,050 Before Consofl a n Diameler On Height (In: Water Content I% ■ Dry Density (pct old Rati( After Consolidati0 fin - IOwa Sal CIA Clay (CL (w.s Job No. 8389 Date: 4/20112 n, 4 = 44 n n, c' = 0.03 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: Ni tt r ' 4 vS (tsr) eress (tsf) .or Stress (tsf) %.�.•� -Ss at Failure (tsf) reS sure Parameter "B' Pct. Axial Strain at MIUM U -XK UAa U.Ot! 0.57 0.03 1.41 0.57 0.03 1.41 0.57 0.03 1.41 e.4 or . y 20.1 i 1.0 1.0 1.0 20.0 20A 20.0 0 . 0 x ase test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are appropriate for any padcular design" p, 4 Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and Iim2.e liately sheared. 2 1 0- 0 3 Normal Stress (tsf) •- Effei y`1 33.50 c'e 0.03 (tsf) Total 0: 32.1 ° C- 0.00 (ti 01L NGINEERtNG Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -2031 ESTING, INC. 4 1g #: Type: 0.25 � o.z 9 0.15 �i Q, 0.1 0 a 0.05 1.6 1.4 X1.2 N 1 y0.8 m >0.4 g 0.2 0 4.5 4.0 0 3.5 3.0 cc m 2.5 N 2.0 1.5 1.0 0 TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767 Taft Speedway Levee - Iowa City, IA - 4126026 TB -7 Sample #: Type: 3T Depth (ft): 7.5 -9 Sandy Silty Clay (Cl. -Ml.) Q 1 G N m N 0 0 Axial Strain (�) 1 2 Normal Streee (p') (tsf) Rupture Envelope at Failure a= 29.5 Angle o Inte Apparen Test Date: 415/12 Test Type: CU w /pp Strain Rate (in /min): 0.00148 Strain Rate (%hnin): 0.050 Before Consolidation Diameter (In C] Height an Water Content (%; Dry Denslty (pcf; old Ratic After Consolidati L fin 602 6 Tyr 2 1 0 D Job No. 8389 Date: 4/20/12 n, q = -.1 "t n, c' = 0.02 Llquld Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 2.68 or es(tsq u.za uw u.aa 'tress (ts0 0.57 00 1.41 .or Stress(tsf) 0.57 0.08 1.41 ss at Failure Ott) 0.55 0.88 1;38 - ressure Buildup (tsf) 0.13 0.21 0.21 ossuro Parameter -B' 1.D 1.0 1.0 Pct. Dial Strain at Failure 15.0 15.0 15.0 ,e se test results are for Informational purposes only and must be reviewed by qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are appropriate for any particular design- . Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and ,edlmoly sheared. 2 3 4 Normal Stress (tsf) --- - - - - -- Effective¢': 34.4 d- 0.02 (tsf) Total 0: 30,90 c= 0;00 (tat) OIL 2401 W 661h Street RGINE1 INC. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -2031 q, ESTIN INC. 5 ' � 2 3 4 Normal Stress (tsf) --- - - - - -- Effective¢': 34.4 d- 0.02 (tsf) Total 0: 30,90 c= 0;00 (tat) OIL 2401 W 661h Street RGINE1 INC. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -2031 q, ESTIN INC. Triaxiat Data Job: 8389 e -4..... TR,7 R..Iae Deohh: 7.5-9 Date: 4)20112 Sample i Sam le Z Sam le 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 0.05 0.34 0.25 0.08 0.51 0.30 0.10 0.88 0.33 0.11 0.85 0.35 0.11 1.01 0.37 0.12 1.18 0.3B o OWN- 0.39 0.12 1.52 0.40 0.13 1.69 0.40 0.13 1.86 0.41 o O l'tl N 4) 0.13 2.19 4) 0.13 2.36 0.42 0.13 2.53 0.43 0.13 Id d N 0.13 N 0.43 G N J 0.13 m 0.44 0.13 3.38 0.44 0.13 ID 0 0.45 (% 4.05 0.45 0.13 r 0.46 0.13 4.73 0.46 0.13 ❑ 0.46 uJ O D 0.13 UJ O IL 0.12 VJ O a 0.12 7.09 O a 0.12 7.43 D n 0.12 777 a. 0.00 O.OQ 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.05 0.34 0.25 0.08 0.51 0.30 0.10 0.88 0.33 0.11 0.85 0.35 0.11 1.01 0.37 0.12 1.18 0.3B 0.12 1.35 0.39 0.12 1.52 0.40 0.13 1.69 0.40 0.13 1.86 0.41 0,13 2,03 0.41 0.13 2.19 0.42 0.13 2.36 0.42 0.13 2.53 0.43 0.13 2.70 0.43 0.13 2.67 0.43 0.13 3.04 0.44 0.13 3.21 0.44 0.13 3.38 0.44 0.13 3.72 0.45 0.13 4.05 0.45 0.13 4.39 0.46 0.13 4.73 0.46 0.13 5.07 0.46 0.13 5.40 0.47 0.13 9.08 0.48 0.12 615 0.48 0.12 7.09 0.49 0.12 7.43 0.49 0.12 777 0.50 0.12 8.11 0.50 0.12 8.44 0.51 0.12 8.78 0.51 0.12 9.12 0.51 0.12 9.46 0.52 0.11 9.79 0.52 0.11 10.13 0.53 0.11 1031 0.53 0.11 11.48 0.53 0.11 1216 0.53 0.11 12.83 0,54 0.11 13.51 0.55 0.10 15.20 0.55 0.10 16.88 0.57 0.10 18.57 0.56 0109 20.00 0.57 0.09 00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.30 0.10 0.17 0.41 0.34 0.44 0.14 0.34 0.60 0.51 0.52 0.16 0.51 0.69 0.68 9.59 0.18 0.68 0.78 0.85 0.63 0.19 0.85 0,84 1.01 0.66 0.20 1.02 0.87 1.18 0.68 0.20 1.19 0.91 1.35 0.69 0.20 1.35 0.92 1.52 0.71 0.21 1.52 0.94 1.69 0.71 0.21 1.69 0.97 1.86 0.72 0.21 1.86 0.98 2.03 0.72 0.21 2.03 0.99 2.20 0.73 0.21 2.20 1.01 2.37 0.73 0.21 2.37 1.01 2.54 0.73 0.21 2.54 1.03 2.71 0.74 0.21 2.71 1.03 2.88 0.74 0.21 2.88 1.03 3.04 0.74 0.21 3.05 3.21 0.74 0.21 3.22 3.38 0.74 0.21 3.39 3.72 075 0.21 3.73 iq 4.06 0.75 0.21 4.Or 4.40 0.76 0.21 40 4.74 0.76 0.21 J. 74 5.07 0.77 0.21 0.3418 0.4.08 5.41 0.78 0.2r 0.51 1 0.Lov 6.09 0.78 0.68 6.77 0.80 .85 .63 7.44 0.81 .12 .01 8.12 0. 0.12 1.18 18 8.80 .39 0.12 1.20 9A7 0.40 6 :1 P 1.5 1.22 10.15 "d2. u0.1, 169,4 1.23 o.a 93 0,118 18:84 1.23 0.41 0.13 "11.52 1.24 4 129 0.42 13 12.19 1,26 12.1 0.42 3 , 1 2,87 1,28 13.53 0.43 "i6 13.55 1.30 15.22W.43 WO.15 15,24 1.36 16.92 0.14 16.94 1.38 18.61 0.14 IBM 1.38 20.00 9.93 0.13 19.98 1.41 0.00 0.11 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.20 0,20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 O.1ug q.14 -W 0.0,18 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 goring #: Soil Type: 0.1 0.2 c � 0.1 0 a` o` a 0.2 -0.3 1.6 1 1.9 H1.2 M/ 1 y0_e 00.6 M '00,4 00 2 0 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 a � 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 .a. 1 N d y m m t N TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767 Taft Speedway Levee - Iowa City, IA - 0126026 TB -1 Sample #: 2 Type: 3T Depth (ft): 7.5 -9 Lean Clay w /sand (CL/CL -ML) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Normal Stress (p') (tsf) r-FFuipturo Envelope at Fallure a= 23.1 a= 0.2 (tsf) 2401 W 66th Sheet .lob ND. 8389 Date: 4/20/12 Angle of internal friction, IV = 2530 Apparent Cohesion, c'= 0.17 (W Test D910: 4/5112 Liquid 11m0: Test Type: CU wlpp Plastic Llmlt Stain Rate (in/min): 0.00148 Plasticity Index: Strain Rata (Wmtn ): 0.050 Sped Gral (Assumed): 2.68 BeTr-5-Co-n-s3Fd5-t7o-,1 A B I C 0 E Diameter (in) 1.44 1.44 1.43 Height (in) 2.96 2.96 2.95 Water Contact (%) 15.3 24.0 24.6 Dry Density (poE 104.6 99.7 97.9 old Ratio 0.60 0.58 0.71 After Consolidario "fin) 1.431 1.43 1.42 v ,e - IOtPlo 2.98 2.94 2.96 ^on1. § 22.0 24.5 25.6 e , wAand(Ct,eity 1A ,06.2 100.9 99.9 Raab 0.59 0.66 0169 ?F77:7� (tail 5.8 5.8 5.8 ss (LA 0.29 0 -45 0.58 ",as (1:811) 1.42 1.22 1.31 �- matc .or Stress (tell 1.41 1.22 1.31 4- • Sh,.ss at Failure (Isl) 0.67 1.10 1,12 I_ g N Max_ Pan. ressme Buildup(taf) 0.09 016 0.25 Y0.1 ressure Parameter 611 1.0 1.0 1.01 1 Pc[. Axial Strain 91 Pak10re 1,5 tO.B 5.1 .ass test results are far informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are 6 X appropriate for any particular design' Is arks: Radial drainage stops applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, baekprassured Infil . response was 0.9510 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and Immediately sheared. specimens varied In density significantly. Specimen Awas not used in determination of 2 1 2.5 U 2 3 9 Normal Stress (tsf) Effecllve 0', 2520 c'= 0.17050 Total +: 18.50 c= a.22 ((sg 01L NGINEERING Richfield, Minnesota 55423.2031 ESTING, INC. • � Ii l ti � n f , Irl r 2.5 U 2 3 9 Normal Stress (tsf) Effecllve 0', 2520 c'= 0.17050 Total +: 18.50 c= a.22 ((sg 01L NGINEERING Richfield, Minnesota 55423.2031 ESTING, INC. 3oring #: 3oll Type: 0.3 0.2 c N d 0.1 v a a` p -0.1 0 a -0.2 -0.3 1.6 1.4 X1.2 y 1 d X0.6 00.6 is '50. 4 0 X0,2 0 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 ' m 2,5 W 2.0 1.5 1.0 0 i cr 1 m m m b N is v t Vl TRIAXIAL TEST ASTIa: D 4767 Taft Speedway Levee • Iowa City, IA - #126026 TB -1 Sample #: 2 Type: 3T Depth (ft): 7.5 -9 Lean Clay wlsand (CL /CL -ML) 5 10 1 20 Axial Strain 2 1 0 Angle of Inte Ap arer Test Date: 4IW12 Test Type: CU w /pp Strain Rate (In /min): 0.00148 Strain Rare (951min): 0.050 Before Consallda(ion Dlameterp i Height (in Water Content (% Dry Density(pcf Void Ratl After Gonsolidati L 026 r(in _ Tye � roof Job No, 8389 Date: 4120/12 1, c'= 0.00 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 2.68 ess fish 1 0,451 0.59 3lreas (tsf) 1.42 1.22 1.31 .Aor Stress (tsf) 1.41 1.22 1.31 .esa at Failure(tsi) 1A2 1.22 1.31 ressure Bulldup (1 0.09 0.15 0.25 Pressure Parameter "B" 1.0 Pct. Axial Strain at Failure 16.9 20.0 20A aese test results are for Informational purposes only and must be reviewed by qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are appropriate for any particular design" Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured d" response was 0.95 to 1.001 Consolidated; At Drainage valves closed and nediately sheared. ecimens varied in density significantly. Specimen A was not used in determination of 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 Normal stress (p') (tsfy Normal Stress (tsf) Rupture Envelope Failure ----- - - - - -- Effective Q': 35.5 c'= 0.00 (tsf) a= 30.1 ° a = at 0.0 (tsf) Total p: 17.0 ° a 0.32 Qsf) OIL 2401 W 66th Street NGINEERING Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -2031 ESTING, INC. 4 Project: Miring #: 3011 Type: 0.3 0.2 N 0.1 2 D a` 0 a -o.z -0.3 .6 .,a yl.2 1 v `00.6 id ®0,4 X0.2 0 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 m y 3.0 m u 2.s N 2.0 1.5 1.0 c 9 P 1 m N t N TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767 Taft Speedway Levee - Iowa City, IA - #126026 TB -i Sample #: 2 Type: 3T Depth (n): 7.5 -9 Lean Clay w /sand (CUCL ML) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Normal Stress (P') (tsf) Rupture Envelope at Failure a= 3D.1 ° a= 0.0 (tsf) 2401 W 66th Street Angle Of isle, Apparen Test Dale: 4M2 Test Type: CUwlpp Strain Rate (in /min): 0.00148 Strain Rate (%!min): 0.050 Before Consoldadon Diameter (in] Height (in) Water Content (%] Dry Density (pct; Void Rail After Consolidate ,r(in) 026 n _ Q. Type: n wily + Inter Job No. 8389 Date: 4/20112 n, IF = joa n, C' = 0.00 Lrquid Limit Plastlo Limit Plasticity Index M 2.68 .vlin, ess (tat) 0.26 0.45 0.58 Stress (Isf) 1.42 1.22 1.31 -'fiil Aor Stress (151) 1.41 1.22 1.31 -F_ 'or S..ess at Failure (l 1.36 1.15 125 Pressure Bulldup(K 0.09 0.15 025 -e Pressure Parameter'S' 1.0 1,0 1.0 Pct. Axial Strain at Failure 15.0 15.0 15 -0 nose test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a quallfled professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are X appropriate for any particular design" Remarks: Radial drainage strips appi(ed totrimmad specimen; Saturated, bachpressured un01 3" response was 0.9510 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and Im,nediately sheared. Specimens varied in density significantly. Specimen A was not used in determination of 2 1 0 2,5 0 1 2 3 Normal Stress (tsf) ....- Effeclive 35,5 c'= 0.00 (tsf) Total 17,0 ° F 0.30 gal OIL NGMEERING Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -2031 ESTING, INC. 4 Triaxial Data Job: 8389 sort a: TB -1 semule: 2 Depth= 7.5 -9 Date: 4/20/12 Sample i Sample s Sam le; Sample 4 Sample 5 u.uu u.w 2 n.uu 0.17 0.30 0.07 0.17 0.35 0,11 0.17 0.37 0.13 0.34 0,42 0.09 0.34 0.46 0,13 134 O 0.19 ON 0.51 0.09 0.51 N N 0.14 N N 0.22 0.68 0.09 0.68 0.52 0.15 0168 l� N 4-' 0,85 0.65 CM 0.85 0.57 0.15 0.85 �i 0.24 m CL 0.08 1.02 o 0.15 m v 0.25 , 1.18 0.77 0.07 p 0.73 0.15 1.16 0.94 U) o 1.35 U) 0_ 1.36 0.76 _ 1.35 cn a- 1.52 o 0.05 1.53 0_ 0.00 0 -00 u.0u u.uu u.uu u.uu u.w U.w n.uu 0.17 0.30 0.07 0.17 0.35 0,11 0.17 0.37 0.13 0.34 0,42 0.09 0.34 0.46 0,13 134 0.55 0.19 0.51 0.51 0.09 0.51 0.56 0.14 0.51 0.67 0.22 0.68 0.58 0.09 0.68 0.52 0.15 0168 0.77 0.23 0,85 0.65 CM 0.85 0.57 0.15 0.85 0.84 0.24 1.01 0.72 0.08 1.02 0.71 0.15 1.01 0.90 0.25 , 1.18 0.77 0.07 1.19 0.73 0.15 1.16 0.94 0.25 1.35 0.82 0.06 1.36 0.76 0.14 1.35 0.97 0.25 1.52 0.87 0.05 1.53 0.78 0.14 1.52 0.98 0.24 1.69 0.90 0,04 1.70 0.80 0.14 1.69 1.00 024 1.86 0.94 0.03 1.87 0.80 0.14 1.86 1,02 0.24 2.03 0.98 002 2.04 0.82 0.13 2.03 1.03 0,24 2.20 1.00 0.01 2.21 0.82 0.13 2.20 1.04 0,24 2,37 1.02 0.00 2.36 0.84 0.13 2.37 1.05 0,,23 2.54 1.04 0.00 2.55 0,84 0.13 2.54 1.05 0,27 2.71 1.05 -0.01 2.72 0,85 0.72 2.71 1.05 2.87 1.07 -0.02 2.89 0.85 0.12 2.87 1.05 0 3.04 1.08 -0.03 3.06 0,86 0.12 3.04 1.06 N m 3.21 1.10 -0.04 3.23 0.87 0.12 3.21 > C' 3.3B 1.11 -0.04 3.40 0.87 0.12 3.30 L N -3 3.72 1.12 -0.05 3.74 0.89 0.11 3.72 JZ' 4.06 1.13 -0.06 4.08 0.90 0.11 4.06 L O.L. 4,40 1.15 -0.07 4.42 0.91 0.10 4Q0 122 4.74 1,15 -0.08 4.76 0.92 0.10 0. 01' 5.07 1,16 -0.09 5.10 0.93 0.10 0.3a 1,35 ;vq 8;13 5.41 1,17 -0.09 5.44 0.94 0.09 0.51 6.09 1 19 -0.10 6.11 0.96 D 0.68 0., 0 6.76 1.20 -0.12 6.79 0 11, 0.85 .57 X71 0.20 7.10 1.22 -0.12 7.13 0.99 .02 0.19 7.44 1.23 -0.13 7.47 1.0 1.19 7.78 1.24 -0.13 7.81 1.6 0.06 CO ,19 0.18 6.12 1.25 -0.13 8,15 0.87 1. 1.19 0.18 8.46 8.79 1.28 1.30 -0.14 -0.14 840 8, 00 0.02 1.70 1.82 1.20 1.22 0.17 0.17 9.13 1.31 -0.15 9. 0.98 0 02 ,1.50 1.22 0.17 9.47 1.31 -0.15 0 1.00 0;01 12.17 1.25 0.16 9.81 1.32 -0.15 1.02 ().00 12.85 1.25 0.16 10.15 1.33 -0.16 70. 1.04 094 13.53 1.25 0.15 10.82 1.33 -0.17 10.87 •05 0104 15.22 1.28 0.14 11.50 1.33 -0.17 11.55 0.03 16.91 1.29 0.14 12.18 1.34 -0.16 12.23 0.03 18.60 1.30 0.13 12.85 1.34 -0.19 12.91 1.13 0.02 20.00 1.31 0.12 13.53 1.36 -0.19 13.59 1.15 OV 15.22 1.38 -0.20 15.28 1.18 0.00 16.91 1.42 -0.21 16.98 1.20 -0.01 18.60 1.41 -0.22 18.68 - 1.22 -0.02 20.00 1.41 -023 20.00 1.22 -0.03 APPENDIX E: TRANSCRIPT AND COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETING NO. 1 PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK _ 4r Oivoi lolv,lClI Taft Speedway Public Involvement Summary Public Meetings Date & Location *11 Attendees 8/25/11 Parkview Church 737 15 Foster Rd, Iowa City, IA Comments Received Outreach 1 M Comment Email Date 7 Letter 1 Meeting Comment Form 20 Petition 3 Website 20 Total 51 Outreach 1 M All Comments Date Received: 8/18/2011 Comment ID: 3 Closed Name: Brenneman, James Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: Due to health problems I may not be able to attend a meeting. I am opposed to any significant flood mitigation for this area. It would seem to me that the money spent on mitigation (not to mention ongoing maintenance) will benefit only those condos in the flood plain at the expense of other residents of Iowa City. I live on Louis Place - up the hill from Taft Speedway. I was out of my house for at least a week during the last flood so I am not uninterested in this. I just think that whatever you do there, eventually - maybe not in my lifetime, but some day- the river will go where it wants- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 4 Name: Fellows, Robert Organization- Responder- Comment: Support letter (see scan) Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 5 Name: Novak, Tom Organization: Responder: 0 Closed Comment Source: Email 0 Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Minimize negative effects on properties and structures outside the proposed levee. Spend public funds wisely: Fully assess and disclose all costs associated with constructing and maintaining a levee designed to protect private property at public expense. Will the alternatives explored include private flood mitigation options instead of a publically built levee (can Idyllwild build their own flood wall /removable flood wall) Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 6 0 Closed Name: Cline, Sally Organization: Idyllwild Condo Owners Association Responder: Comment Source: Letter Comment: Flood Mitigation and Emergency Response Plan Exec Summary (see scan) Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 I�Ffia:�fa. PII:iE:1f�1.7f��Sfi� .AZT 0-- i1191W/ Name: Ettinger, Sonia Organization: Responder: ❑ Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Why are the various projects separated? Surely the Coraville project - not listed - and the Dubuque St and Riverfront Crossing projects relate to this project. The river doesn't know the differencel PS: The Hydraulics Dept knew there was going to be a flood - but the city listened to the Corps. Notes: Jason to respond- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 8 Name: — Anonymous, — Anonymous Organization: Responder: W Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Glad I'm not in your shoes - a no -win situation Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 9 Closed Name: Wallace, Douglas Organization Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Solution that is in the best long -term interests of all the parties involved, including Taft Speedway, Peninsula Development and others up Foster Rd and the Idyllwild Condo Assoc- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 10 Name: Geefer, Gregg Organization: Responder: 0 Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: 1) There must be no increase in flooding risk because of any construction. No negative risk to Park View Terrace. 2) Make your assessment based on the assumption that Park Road Bridge will not be raised. There is no guarantee that this bridge will be raised. 3) Consider the fairness issue. Is it fair to build a levee to protect Idyllwild at another's expense? 4) Why do you simply do nothing? Let people live with what they bought. Let them buy flood insurance. Let everyone keep their present risk and present situation. No cost to the public and no harm to anyone. It is the fairest way. 5) The city must not abandon the residents who are staying in Park View Terrace. Why? Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 I�F.fia:�'fa. - PI:I:iE:1f�1.7f��rSfi� .�ZTTiLaiiil�)tifil Name: Meis, Gerald Organization: Responder: W Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: We live on White Oak PI. The issue of fire protection has come up for our area in the event of a near term flood. Is there anything in place should we have a flood before mitigation. This maybe an issue with our insurance carrier- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 12 Name: Beyer, Nancy Organization: Responder: 0 Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: The homes that exist on either side of the river - the families there - roots like the trees of the land - the precarious balance of our little ecosystem- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 24 ❑ Closed Name: Pirnat, Cliff Organization Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Find a way to use levee money to buy out Idyllwild. We should have all been aware of flood potential. People have health insurance - home insurance, car and life insurance the cheapest is flood insurance. We have to think of towns below Iowa City. No need to change Mother Nature. I still say something happened at the reservoir. Nothing underjust below the dam in 93 -2008 it was totally under. Again spillway over 30 days in 93-,12 days in 2008 Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 25 Name: Tegen, Terry & Angie Organization: Responder: ❑ Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Two points that I feel need to be kept in mind. 1. The City encouraged development of the Idyllwild and the Peninsula saying that they were not in the 100 yr flood plain. 2. The residents of Taft Speedway and Parkview were offered buyouts, Idyllwild was not. Therefore, I feel that the City has an obligation to protect Idyllwild or offer buyouts at the 2008 evaluation level- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 26 ❑ Closed Name: Johansen, Bill & Bev Organization Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Idyllwild should be the 1st priority considered because it would affect the largest number of people, condos (houses) and also the tax base. Parkview Terrace could put up a levee to prevent their area from flooding. California has put up levees all over their areas to prevent flooding. Idyllwild residents wanted a buy -out but was told it was too expensive - also the City would lose the tax base- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 27 ❑ Closed Name: Johansen, Bill & Bev Organization Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: - Taxable income /property worth of Idyllwild condos - Number of families in Idyllwild vs Taft Speedway - No buy -out possible for Idyllwild vs offered buy outs for Taft Speedway - Design of berm/levee considering Parkview Terrace give more options with no homes along the river. A possible solution: - Abandon Taft Speedway /No -name Road - no homes; - Not enough room between properties for levee; - Good place for bicycle path on top of levee; - Can make substantial buy -out offer to Taft Speedway- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 28 ❑ Closed Name: Gay, George Organization Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: The program should be abandoned. People know of the flood risk when they bought. (especially after the floods) Flood insurance is available and risks taken - The City Council over -rode the unanimous decision of P/Z not to build in that area- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 29 ❑ Closed Name: Benson, Bob Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Keep the levee low so that it does not affect the temperatures in Idyllwild. We do not get northern or western breezes. Remove the drainage pit at northwest corner of Idyllwild property. That put T of water into 22 Colwyn Ct June 22 -23, 2008. Drain north hills down No -Name Road. Keep it out of (the Drain) on Idyllwild property -IOWA CITY IS MAKING FLOODING TOO DIFFICULT, I AM NOT BUYING FLOOD INSURANCE! We built at Idyllwild and moved in Jan. 1, 2000. Because, Ben Chait, developer for City of Iowa City said to us "you will never have to worry about flooding at Idyllwild, because the "Corps of Engineers" control the water level at the dam." So we at Idyllwild took that as absolute truth and built. All 26 or 25 buildings of 4 apartments each. The US Corps of Engineers on June 22,2008: the order was given to "open the gates THAT CREATED the flood. Three days before the flood, went to the airport and remarked to my family,'my gosh, I have never seen the lake so high' almost 1/2 the way from lake to residences, up the hill. 3 days later from Atlanta my wife called me to tell me it was flooded. At the marina, by the dam, they must house at least 300 boats. It was summertime and they need plenty of water. So I have maintained. It could not release the water fast enough when the rains came. I do not believe we will flood again- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 44 ❑ Closed Name: Crawford, Mike & Ginger Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: - 92 homes in Idyllwild in 23 buildings. - Idyllwild does not meet FEMA buyout requirements. - Because of construction techniques, Idyllwild buildings cannot be reaised. - Prior to 2008 flood, Idyllwild provide Iowa City with almost a $400,000 tax base. - Protection for Foster Road and Peninsula and Macknow developments Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 45 ❑ Closed Name: Tegen, Terry & Angie Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Because we at Idyllwild were not offered a buy out, but the residents along Taft Speedway were, we deserve priority in protection from future floods. We would still consider a buyout based on 2008 values- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 46 ❑ Closed Name: Wacker, Mike and Rhonda Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Protecting all properties in the surrounding areas. The levee will prevent future flooding. It will increase property values, increase tax bases for the city of Iowa City. I sympathize with the 9 owners on Taft Speedway, but something needs to be done. Hopefully there is a solution that will benefit all residents- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 47 Name: Monick, John Organization: Responder: ❑ Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: Future Flood Protection; Restoring Property Values; Impact on Other Mitigation Plans Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 48 Name: Hartman, Jeanne Organization: Responder: ❑ Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: -Our buildings cannot be raised. - Cannot protect Idyllwild w /sandbags. - By road and mailboxers is flooded 1st and causes residents to be blocked. We must move forward with this levee- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 49 ❑ Closed Name: Kimmerling, Kurt Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Petition Comment: 1) Providing for a flood mitigation system which can protect Idyllwild. 2) Mitigation that can reduce flood insurance premiums for Idyllwild. 3) Mitigation system that can be easily maintained and available for deployment quickly. Either permanent or temporary- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/25/2011 Comment ID: 50 ❑ Closed Name: Tobin, Joe Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: 1) Protecting families and personal property from future flooding. 2) increasing and preserving property values to pre -2008 flood levels or better. 3) Maintaining a viable community in Idyllwild. 4) Raising Debuque St and Foster Rd without installing a flood wall on Taft Speedway and installing back flow devices on the Idyllwild retention ponds will only make out chaces of major flooding worse. There is no way that Idyllwild can protect itself and its residents from future major flooding a flood wall or levee on Taft Speedway. Personal Flood Insurance, which we now have, can only replace personal property, it cannot provide emotional and personal protection. Having been through the 2008 flood, we feel there is no way we would or would ever want to do that again. Also this is Iowa City's chance to receive government money to help mitigate and protect 92 families from future floods. Of the Taft Speedway levee is not built, these funds may be lost forever- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 1171 ra:7'fa.-PI:I:iE:1f�1.7f��Sfi� .�ZTTiLaiiil9ll.'SI Name: Cline, Sally Organization: Idyllwild Condo Owners Association Responder: ❑ Closed Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Comment: A form of protection for Idyllwild - part levee, part another source of protection that can be put in place as flood waters rise. After the flood 2008- owners who could not face a rebuild or hand no money for a rebuild - sold properties between $1.00 and $80,000. Values prior to the flood were $198,000 to $268,000. In July of 2008 we were notified that 3 properties (3 buildings) were considered to be in the 100 yr flood plain. Our insurance for flood is about 1/3 of our income from HOA fees- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/26/2011 Comment ID: 15 ❑ Closed Name: Wilcox, Cathy Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: Was the time line of the study process determined by the City? Or was it based on prior experience that your company has had with this type of study? Can you explain a bit more about the process of this type of study... As you complete different parts of it, does IC staff weigh in at all to make their comments? If so, exactly which city staff members or departments will weigh in? Notes: John Engel to draft response; Jason to send Topic(s): Date Received: 8/26/2011 Comment ID: 16 ❑ Closed Name: Crawford, Mike & Ginger Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: Please consider my comments last night on holding indivdual meetings with various groups such as Idyllwild. I have communicated to City staff that our homeowners look forward to such a meeting and would be happy to make the arrangements. A number of things could be clarified in such a meeting. This might include: Due to construction, our buildings cannot be raised; because of the structure of our HOA we were not able to be considered for buyout; through a study by MMS (you will receive the completed copy of that study) it is impossible for us to protect our property through sandbagging for a flood similar to 2008; our overriding desire is to have flood protection for Idyllwild, whatever that may be. These would be some of fthe many things we could discuss in greater depth. Please meet with us. I can assure you that such a meeting would be helpful to your work, and would be an objective and rational discussion. Thanks. Notes: Theresa draft response- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 8/26/2011 Comment ID: 17 Closed Name: Kimmerling, Kurt Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: Idyllwild has done extensive investigation on flood issue and has a very good engineering study availabe. It was completed by MMS Consultants. The summary is: 1. We cannot raise our buildings due to construction. 2. We cannot achieve a buyout because of the structure of the condo development. 3. It is an impossible task to protect our property by sandbagging. Too many bags to fill and too little time to prepare. 4. We have two flood risks. One fro the river the other from runoff north and west of Idyllwild. Our overriding desire in this project is to end up with permanent flood protection for Idyllwild. Notes: Topic(s): Date Received: 8/26/2011 Comment ID: 18 ❑D Closed Name: Milller Chait, Terri Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: As an owner of 8 condos at Idyllwild, I feel that the this small community is worthy of protection from future floods, and that permanent protection, such as a levee is the best option. 1. We cannot raise our buildings due to the size and type of construction. 2. We cannot achieve a buyout because of the structure of the condo development. Much of Normandy and Taft did get buyout offers. 3. It is an impossible task to protect our property by sandbagging. Too many bags to fill and too little time to prepare- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/26/2011 Comment ID: 19 Closed Name: Kopelman, Bob & Linda Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: I'd like to add two comments following the August 25th meeting. 1- If construction occurs property owners expected to experience materially increased risk should assisted in an amount similar to that expended for protection of other property owners. 2- If financial analysis suggests that the balance of benefits is not >>> new risks public expenditures be limited to raising Foster Rd and similar items required to maintain access to the area. This approach acknowledges that some owners live in a flood plain and must accept responsibility for their decisions. (Similar to those who choose to live in coastal areas on the East Coast for whom protection from hurricanes is impossible and funding is directed at emergency evacuation planning, etc.) (In response to comments about damage from ground water it is possible to get sewer and sump riders on homeowners insurance.) Bob Kopelman Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 8/26/2011 Comment ID: 20 ❑ Closed Name: White, Jim Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Email Comment: An idea that occurred to me after last night's meeting was, why not have the City of MMS mark out along Taft Speedway and No Name Road the width of the levee as proposed in the Stanley map which accompanied the original application for funding for this project? I think this would be most helpful to all interested and concerned parties and I am sure current and future City Council members would benefit as well. I suggest this be done ASAP and especially before the next public meeting on this project- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 8/26/2011 Comment ID: 23 ❑ Closed Name: Rosenquist, Marilyn Organization: Manville Heights Neighborhood Association Responder: Comment Source: Email Comment: Sent to the Manville Heights Neighborhood Assoc.: Press Citizen article 8/25/11 http://www.press- citizen.com/ article /20110826/NEWS01/108260320 The below email is forwarded from Parkview Terrace Neighborhood Association. Website for comments is included. Thanks, Marilyn Rosenquist --- - - - - -- Greetings, Last night's flood mitigation meeting was interesting. The public was invited to comment and a number of people spoke —some spoke for the levee, some against, and some want everything to be fair for everyone. The presentation started at 6 p.m., was brief, and then the comments lasted until 8 p.m. when the meeting closed. The meeting should be broadcast on the city channel (4). It is very important that Parkview Terrace residents and others who are interested comment. The website for comments is: http: / /www.hdrpi.com/taftspeedway /#flocs Please make comments at and continue to use the above website for comments as you think of new ideas. The Idyllwild residents, many of whom are retired, are likely to comment so our side of the river should also. Below is a recap of the meeting as best as I can recall. If I left anything out, I apologize and please feel free to reply back to everyone. There will be a follow up meeting later this year -- please consider attending. Thank you! Mary Meeting Recap As I recall, there were at least 4 supporters who spoke directly in favor of the levee. 1.Sally Cline, a realtor with Iowa Realty, resides in Idyllwild. She is President of the Idyllwild Condominium Owners Association. She referenced a report the Idyllwild Condo board commissioned by MMS on options to protect Idyllwild.; 2. Terri Miller Chait, president, secretary, and treasurer of Idyllwild Development 11, Inc. which appears form the assessors website to own 9 condos and 12 parcels of land. Ms. Chait is a director of the Idyllwild Condominium Owners Association. She said Idyllwild Development, which she represents owned several properties and it would be difficult to sandbag Idyllwild.; 3. Mary Kathryn and Douglas Wallace. Mr. Wallace said he was an engineer and that engineers are capable of solving any problems associated with building a levee. Mrs. Wallace's appeal was more emotional.; 4. Mike Crawford, another Idyllwild Condo board member, also spoke. He wants HDR to meet independently with impacted groups and said the issue is about people.; A couple of people commented that the project goals were unclear and wondered what they were. Comments that did not support a levee included the following: 1. Building a levee to protect a few people at the expense of others is not fair.; 2. Property taxes shouldn't be used to build a levee which supports a few people. One Taft Speedway resident referred to the costs of the levee. He asked what if it was $25 million?; 3-Hydrological concerns —a number of people, including at least one person at the Idyllwild side, said that water comes up from the ground and could flood Idyllwild from within if the levee is built (or something to this effect). People also referenced water problems caused by heavy rains.; 4. Parkview Terrace is still a neighborhood and the levee shouldn't impact others.; 5. Many people spent money to rebuild homes and have other expenses. The buyout wouldn't compensate people for this and so a buyout wasn't feasible.; 6. dyllwild residents should worry because if Idyllwild does flood from within property insurance won't cover the damage and insurance for damage caused by groundwater may be unavailable.; 7. Impact on wildlife.; 8-The levee could be wide enough to adversely impact an Idyllwild end unit.; 9. Past city councils were warned not to let Idyllwild be built but did so anyway.; 10.The homes on Taft Speedway would be negatively impacted by the presence of a large levee.; 11.The Idyllwild tax base can be protected by the Idyllwild residents purchasing flood insurance which is far less expensive than a levee.; 12. Raising Foster Road is much less expensive than building a levee.; 13-If the University could move Calvin Hall on a hill with oxen and still hold classes during the semester, Iowans should be able to raise the Idyllwild condo building (this was in response to an Idyllwild comment that their buildings couldn't be raised).; 14-There was at least one comment that removing or changing the Burlington stream dam would benefit all.; 15. Access to the Peninsula could be had less expensively through Laura Dr.; 16-What will happen to water and sewer pipes if they have to go through the levee (applicable to Taft Speedway residents). One of the more interesting comments which the newspapers did not pick up on came from Ed Cole who owns the trailer park over by Idyllwild and 180. He stated he would be willing to sell the city some of his land to create a second access into the Peninsula. [Iowa City claimed in its application that it needed a road on top of the levee to create a secondary access into the Peninsula. Right now, even this wouldn't help the city because it doesn't own the land to connect any levee road to the Peninsula.] Mary Murphy Parkview Terrace Neighborhood Association Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 8/27/2011 Comment ID: 34 ❑ Closed Name: Wilcox, Joel Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: I believe that it would be a mistake to pursue any special flood mitigation strategies that create unfairness or disadvantage for one set of neighbors by attempting to protect another set. Creating adverse effect makes the taxpayers of Iowa City liable for any possible future damage that could be linked to those efforts. People live on the flood plain at their own risk. It is not incumbent upon the City of Iowa City and its citizens to make living on the flood plain risk -free. I don't believe that any action can make an area of the flood plain truly risk -free. At best, it might create the perception that it is risk - free. At worst, it could create new risks that are not anticipated. For example, if a levee were built along Taft Speedway, it might make Idyllwild prone to being flooded from behind it in the event of rains such as occurred this summer in Dubuque, Iowa. The area would be subject to the effectiveness of pump stations, etc. The best plan is to let the river spread through the flood plain. We know exactly what that does. Flood insurance is the best strategy available to protect property value on the flood plain and it is available to all individuals who assume the risk of living on either side of the river in Iowa City. My family is uniquely caught up in the issue particularly of the proposed Taft Speedway levee. My wife and I and our children live along the river on Taft Speedway; my mother lives in an Idyllwild condominium. My mother is one of the remaining original owners still living in Idyllwild, and of those individuals, she is one who has no other domicile. Her worldly wealth is entirely tied up in her property. I am not without interest in the future of Idyllwild for the sake of my mother's happiness and comfort and for the future viability of her property as an investment. Despite this, I find the concept of a levee to be unacceptable for the following reasons: "For the most part, it appears that the motive is not to help people who are currently suffering to recover but to improve the perception that their property is worth more than it is perceived to be worth as a result of its having been flooded in the past " Even if the question of perceived value were a legitimate reason to use taxpayer funds, I believe that a levee would adversely affect the value of my mother's property overtime because it would change the view, decimate the whole region of many of its trees, and generally make Idyllwild into an unsightly dry island. " City Park is a great treasure of Iowa City. A levee would adversely affect all neighborhoods on both sides of the river by spoiling the view from all sides of it. The adverse change in the prospect from across the river would directly affect the value of the park for all the citizens of Iowa City. " A 500 -year flood is by definition a 2% probable event. Flood insurance, available to all, is a better form of protection for events of this nature and rarity. "A levee would not protect my mother and other Idyllwild residents from inconvenience in the event of a flood, as more than likely, in the extremely improbable event of a repeat of 2008 conditions, residents would still be evacuated, but would they be eligible for any financial assistance in relocating? " I don't believe that the Idyllwild Association and the City of Iowa City have pursued with all due diligence the most clear, effective, and economical avenues of flood mitigation in Idyllwild, namely, by raising the structures themselves. This is something that the Idyllwild Association could undertake on its own behalf. It is the model that has been pursued by individuals successfully elsewhere on the floodplain. Our home on Taft Speedway was a ranch home built on a slab in 1959. We had it raised in 1993, built new walls on the original footing, and constructed a completely new floor to set our home back down on. This new level was almost entirely flooded in 2008, but our actual living space was unharmed. The extent of our recovery in 2008 was mainly cleanup. Water receded from our lower level in early July 2008 and by late July we were living in our home again. House movers can elevate any structure. Even if taxpayers had to subsidize this cost, it would probably be much cheaper than the cost of a levee without the potential liability the taxpayers might incur from the creation of adverse impact if they are required to subsidize a levee, and its effectiveness would be certain as compared with any attempt to control the river. Iowa City's original proposal, in my judgment, secured funds as a result of not disclosing the existence of a neighborhood (Taft Speedway St) that would be directly, intimately, and deleteriously affected by a levee. The reason that this very study is underway is because of interventions at our request by Senator Charles Grassley and HUD, as per his request. While it is understandable that HUD and the Iowa Department of Economic Development have done all that they could to rush funds to the City for its relief, it remains unconscionable that these funds are at issue as a result of an application in which a whole neighborhood was hidden. In addition, other residents who might be affected elsewhere on the flood plain were also neglected. The original application also made this project about an "alternative" access to the Peninsula neighborhood. The City owns the Peninsula neighborhood and held itself to a more lenient standard than other construction projects by not requiring a secondary access when the neighborhood was initially developed. The only way that the City could make Taft Speedway into a true "alternate" or secondary access to the Peninsula is by purchasing properties west of Taft Speedway, Report date: 5/16/2012 which the City has tried to do but has so far been unsuccessful in doing. CDBG money is for the relief of human suffering. I believe that it is wrong and bad policy to use money designated for the relief of suffering to create a secondary access to a neighborhood. If the case were to be made that the "alternative" aspect that the levee would create is an alternative to Foster Road, it is simply not credible that there would ever be conditions in which Foster Road, already protected by a levee, would have as its alternative a road on top of the protective levee itself. The original application is not a credible representation of how a road -levee would both protect Idyllwild and provide alternative access to the Peninsula neighborhood " without further development of the road to the west of Taft Speedway being somehow understood though not stated as such. The original application therefore is unwholesome and lays a very shaky foundation for the project as a whole and makes the City's entire effort subject to speculation and conspiracy theories- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/27/2011 Comment ID: 35 ❑ Closed Name: Seydel, Carol Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: The Levee is a waste of tax money for a private development. IT will be a blight on the entrance to Iowa City. It will not protect the entity that it is meant for as Idyllwide can flood from behind the levee as well as from the river side. It is a drainage for many acres of land surrounding the property. THe statement that the Idyllwide owners were denied a buyout is not correct They had to have 100% cooperaqtion of tenants and they did not get. Prkview Terrace had to agree to the same stipulation for a buyout and they filed to do so also., How much taxr revenue is generated from Parkview Terrance and Taft Speedwya resident . Is it equal to or greater than the 55000$ that Idyllwide Development provides? It semms to me the City spends more than that keeping the residents of Idyllwide content. The Church pays no taxes I assume since it is a religious entity. What will the cost be for relocating the infrastucture for Taft residence. I hope they are not planning on the reisident paying for that. Consideration of the effect of the coffer dam on the flood of 2008. As well as the lack of attention from the Rock Island engineers at the reservoir. The water was held high all summer of 2008 for the recreation on the reservoir. I live on the river and I watched the height of the water all summeer. It was bank high over 10,000 cubic ft . most of the summer. Greater attention should be given to that. The reservoir has a flood protection purpose. It was not built for a recreation facility. Let us ask again who is to gain from this levee. It is The City engineers who want a road to the peninsula neighborhood They failed to provide two means of egress when developing the neighborhood. Thus the neighborhood had to be evacuated. Even thought they were a mile above the river. The one road in and out was flooded. If this is the cae continue LAura Drive over the top of the hill and save alot of headaches. I believe that the idea of so- called free money from the Federal Government gave them the idea of how to get a free road to solve their dilemma. Taft Speedway was to be a neighborhood road. Only the residents were to use it. That is a fallacy. Traffic from the peninsula is very heavy on Taft. The drivers are avoiding the traffic light on Foster and speeding along Taft which is a chip and seal driveway . Check that out. My property is historically significant Iowa City family owned property for over 150 years. Floods do not bother us. We rebuild and live conentedly in our warning 83 years -Carol Seydel Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 8/28/2011 Comment ID: 13 Closed Name: Hall, Becky Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: 1. Please do not throw more money, as a bandage, on a problem that will only be really solved through buying out or raising /moving homes out of the river's way. Let's learn from the past. 2. After visiting the new Katrina Museum in New Orleans and seeing the exhibit that shows the many ways levees can be breached, I don't think this is the answer, especially for the Idyllwild area which sits so low. 3. Coordination with other agencies and cities is needed. What we do affects others. Look at other studies and the flood model the University of Iowa uses. 4. Maybe the best solution is doing nothing but putting more material along the river to control erosion, raising the Park Road bridge and buying out or raising more houses. These things are all being done now, but lets use the $11 million plus for more of these projects and not levees- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/28/2011 Comment ID: 14 Closed Name: Guentner, Wendelin Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: Thank you for this opportunity to respond by email; I was unable to attend the meeting. First, kindly include Stonewall Condominiums on your list of interested parties (560, 5627 5707 572 Foster Road). Our condos date from 1978. We were therefore here before any of the communities that were named and have just as much right if not more to be heard. I moved into my condominium in 1991, but have lived on the Peninsula (Haywood Drive) since 1985. At that time, except for the homes along Taft Speedway, there was no development in the floodplane. From those early years on I have walked my dogs along Taft Speedway and so am familiar with the homes and their transformations through the years. I remember the flood of 1993 when there was only one unit of Idylwild built. Knowing that the corn field that was on the site where Idylwild was going to be built was very often flooded, I couldn't imagine how homes could be built there. However, fill was brought in and the project proceeded; unfortunatley we had another flood. I have just a couple of points to make: 1. The residents along the river on Taft Speedway need to be protected. I remember seeing the progress of all the rebuilding (and raising of buildings) that took place after 1993. This helped a number of the residents avoid a worse disaster during this last flood. These architectural changes were terribly expensive. To the residents, their investment is at least as valuable as that of the Idylwild residents is for them. The longtime Taft Speedway residents should not be seen as expendible or an inconvenience as more expensive units or developments are protected. 2. The view of the river should be protected and access even enhanced. Many people walk along Taft because they enjoy the view of the river, the eagle sightings, etc. Whatever roadway is built (if one is) it should include the needs of walkers and bikers and not just motorists. Thank you. Wendelin Guentner (570 Foster Road). Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 8/29/2011 Comment ID: 22 ❑ Closed Name: Benson, Bob Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Email Comment: Hello jason: I want to know what planning is on your agenda for the removal of that drainage pit to a different location off of Idyllwild property. As I said, that clear water from the flood allowed 7' of water into 22 Colwyn Ct. costing $67K ,along with other properties close to the front lake, costs unknown to me. Oh yes, the City built a 8' sand bag levee from Foster Rd. between our condos and incoming entry road. The water from the drainage pit overflowed and ran over the levee of 8' and drained eastward and south. The Welt agency measured the clear water depth at 7'. Take a look at the pit and let me know of the plans. Thanks Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 8/31/2011 Comment ID: 21 ❑ Closed Name: White, Jim Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Email Comment: I know that you called and indicated to me that due to non - budgeted costs and the "inexact" nature of the Stanley map for the proposed Taft Speedway and No Name Road Levee project, that my suggestion in my August 26, 2011 e-mail to you would not be possible, feasible or produce an "accurate" result. Today I was reviewing my file on this project and read once again a letter dated March 23, 2011 sent to Senator Grassley's Office in Cedar Rapids from Tim Waddell of the Iowa Department of Economic Development. In this letter Mr. Waddell indicates that IDED and the HUD Disaster Office expect the City of Iowa City to "Determine height and width of levee at 100 year +3 feet and 500 year levels." And to "Determine ability of residents to exit and enter homes after construction." And to "Determine the location of main water and sewer mains and if they are on the north side of levee...." along with a number of other important topics and requirements. So, it appears to me that my suggestion was not as original as I thought, and more importantly that my suggestion and others related to it will have to be done in the very nearfuture. If I am not reading and interpreting Mr. Waddel's March 23, 2011 letter to Senator Grassley correctly please inform me as soon as possible either by e-mail or regular US Mail- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 9/14/2011 Comment ID: 30 ❑ Closed Name: — Anonymous, — Anonymous Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: The CDBG supplemental disaster application was approved for a levee, not anything else. Any attempt by the City to move these funds to any other type of flood mitigation, in my opinion, would be illegal. Previous legal notices in the newspaper, City Council approval for the grant application, City Council votes to accept the money, etc etc. were all based on the construction of a levee! Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 9/15/2011 Comment ID: 31 ❑ Closed Name: Murphy, Mary Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: Could I have an email address for the consultant to submit my comments to? They may be too long to submit via this website although I will try in the next day or so. Thank you. Mary Murphy Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 9/26/2011 Comment ID: 32 ❑ Closed Name: Murphy, Mary Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: 1. When was the Coralville Dam built? At what time was each individual Idyllwild building completed? Did any Idyllwild buildings flood in 1993? If so, to what extent, and is there photographic documentation to support the same? Isn't it true that the Idyllwild development has flooded only once since it was built, and that was during the flood of 2008? 2. The best and most fair solution is to do nothing. The contention that there must be a taxpayer funded solution (levee, temporary, or otherwise) to Idyllwild is wrong. Idyllwild was knowingly built on a bog/wetland and in the riverbank. Any flood mitigation for Idyllwild rewards bad planning, is horrible public policy, failed last time and should not be invested in a second time. Idyllwild residents and the condo association should purchase flood insurance and the condo association should set up a reserve for damages not covered by flood insurance. Your report should reflect this. 3. Asking Iowa City property owners to subsidize Idyllwild owners with a taxpayer paid levee or other flood mitigation at the expense of Taft Speedway and Parkview Terrace homes, which existed long before Idyllwild was even built, is ludicrous. The list of Idyllwild owners that would be protected includes those listed below. See http : / /iowacity.iowaassessors.com/. I support no flood mitigation for Idyllwild! A) Bob Bowlsby, the current athletic director for Stanford and the former athletic director of the University of Iowa, and son Kyle own 118 Pentire Circle. B) Terri Miller Chait of Idyllwild Development II, Inc. owns 9 condos+ 12 parcels of land (not just the several properties she acknowledged at the recent Parkview Church meeting). C) Bocway Investments, LLC owns 14 condos, D) Hills Bank owns 3 units, E) Quad Hawk, Inc. owns 4 condos (with one of the principals likely owning another), and F) Jeff Miller Construction owns 3 condos. G) Sally Cline, a realtor for Iowa Realty, who might financially benefit from the future sales of Idyllwild units. Kurt Kimmerle is also listed at her address. 4. Flood insurance will protect the tax base, and its wrong to punish the people on Taft Speedway and across the river because the Idyllwild board and residents failed to purchase flood insurance prior to the 2008 flood. 5. The Idyllwild condo association likely now has flood insurance. The developer and the condo association may be pushing for a levee or other flood mitigation because they are concerned about being sued if nothing is done and the development floods again. This, if true, is not Iowa City's nor its taxpayers' problem to solve. 6. Some Idyllwild units have been rented since 2008. The condo association claims rentals will only be allowed for a few years then the property must revert to owner occupied housing. I'm skeptical. There are enough owners of rental units in Idyllwild that they could vote to maintain rentals into the future. Idyllwild's by -laws could also be amended. You can search rental permits in Iowa City online at http: / /www.iowa- city.org /icgov /apps /gen /rentals.asp. 7. Currently, Idyllwild is under - assessed by the assessor's office, and Iowa City could be deriving more taxes. An Iowa City assessor stated that the units' assessed value reflects concerns about the potential liability of buyers as evidenced by their liability during the 2008 flood. This concern is misplaced. About a% of Idyllwild units are rented out and the owners are receiving fair market rent - thus getting 100% use out of their investment. Their investment and the investment of those owners who occupy their homes should now be protected by flood insurance so their liability is much more limited than during the 2008 flood. 8. Further, one reason Idyllwild owners had so much liability during the 2008 flood is because the condo association made an overly expensive contract for cleanup and required all owners to contribute. The cleanup company seemed to know what FEMA would pay residents and charged accordingly. This cost was much more than most other Iowa City water damaged property owners paid. If there is a next flood, the condo association will surely make a wiser clean up contract and minimize their liability. In fact, it could make arrangements for such a contingency now. 9. Some investors in Idyllwild bought from flood victims who sold more cheaply than they could have. Find Idyllwild rentals by using Google; Idyllwild units have been advertised on Bocway's website, Craigslist, and other places. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize the profits of these investors. 10. At the end of the day, the Idyllwild owners own what they bought - the intrinsic value remains the same, the residences can still be used for their intended purposes and the land can still be walked on. 11. The other side of the river, including Iowa City Park and Parkview Terrace, is left unprotected. The water's going somewhere and no one else wants it. Even a few inches could mean the difference between homes and downstream businesses flooding and not flooding. Parkview Terrace is much better off without a levee - this is true regardless of whether the Park Road bridge is replaced. 12. Instead of a levee or other non - insurance flood mitigation for Idyllwild, raise Foster Road, dead end Taft Speedway, and save taxpayers millions of dollars. How much money would be saved by doing this? Please show the cost savings under Iowa City's Gateway project and this project. CDBG disaster funds are federal tax dollars. General obligation bonds issued by Iowa City need to be repaid with property taxes. Idyllwild is not essential public infrastructure like a hospital or fire station - don't Report date: 5/16/2012 spend our tax money on a levee or other flood mitigation for itl 13. If efforts to provide flood mitigation (levee or other) adversely impact my home in the future, we will sue. Others may also. The costs of any lawsuits should be considered in any cost benefit analysis of flood mitigation. 14. Levees are ugly and no amount of dressing them up can make them not look like a levee. Flood mitigation on Taft Speedway can be seen from across the river in Iowa City Park's and is a horrible legacy to leave those who enjoy the river view from the Iowa City Park river trail. 15. Does or did the Hayek law firm (past or present) represent any of the owners of Idyllwild condominiums or developers of the Idyllwild area? If so, please provide details. 16. An Iowa City planner has shared that the university may be interested in the Parkview Church property for a dorm or a private developer for more housing. I've also seen documentation on the city's website that suggests more Idyllwild units could be added. Permitting more development in this area that should be a bog /wetland is horrible public policy and potentially expensive for taxpayers. 17. Does any party other than the Parkview Church have an interest in the Parkview Church property? Has any party or parties purchased an option on or other interest in the property? Does the university have an interest in the Parkview Church property? 18. Proponents of the levee seem to believe that it is okay to flood some property owners and /or put them on the "wrong" side of a levee because these owners were offered a buyout; however, this rationale is faulty and misleading. All property owners in Parkview Terrace were not and are not eligible for a buyout, and many impacted property owners started repair work because they could not afford to wait around to see if the city came up with money for a buyout. 19. Plus, a requirement of using federal money to buy out properties was that the buyout be voluntary. Frightening Iowa City residents into selling their homes by threatening them with flood mitigation which could push future water at them robs the buyout of any voluntary nature and certainly violates the spirit of the federal buyout requirements, if not the legal requirements. 20. My family, who lives in Parkview Terrace, is not eligible for a buyout and doesn't want one. There are other owners who were not eligible for a buyout. There is no effective buyout strategy for Parkview Terrace and Iowa City will not own 100% of the homes in Parkview Terrace after the 'voluntary" buyouts are complete. 21. A Parkview Terrace resident, accurately explained at the recent meeting that people put money back into their houses before the city legally offered them a buyout and that they could not afford to later take a financial loss by accepting the buyout which only became available later. 22. What is the specific date the city had the money in hand to make a "legal buyout offer" that was capable of being accepted to 1) eligible Parkview Terrace residents, and 2) Taft Speedway residents? Note, I am not asking for the date that the city mentioned a buyout may be possible or asked about interest in a buyout. 23. A levee, if built, it will be very large and noticeable, and Idyllwild may not attract the same professional /high income demographics it did in the past. The levee would remove Idyllwild's connection to the river. What would the impact on the Idyllwild property tax base be of a big ugly levee next to the condominiums? 24. Iowa City's public works department's failure to promptly demolish vacant homes is creating neighborhood blight in Parkview Terrace and helping suppress property values there. These are homes which had been completed rehabilitated after the flood. 25. Do all Idyllwild condo owners understand how tall and wide the levee would be? How close would this levee physically come to any of the closest Idyllwild units? Will any Idyllwild condo units need to be sacrificed? What happens to the Idyllwild pond closest to Taft Speedway if flood mitigation to protect Idyllwild is pursued? 26. City staff knowingly permitted development of the Peninsula with only one access point to try to create a "new urbanism" development. (Other private owners who have wanted to develop property with only one access point have been denied.) The Peninsula development failed during a time period when other housing developments were successful. This information can be verified by looking at the original plans and due dates for the Peninsula. Our taxes have subsidized the Peninsula enough in terms of paying for city staff, infrastructure, the single family new construction subsidized home program, etc. Simply looking at sales to determine whether the Peninsula has been successful is misleading since many of the sales have been subsidized. All subsidies and future development of the Peninsula should stop. Disaster grants should not be abused to solve a known planning problem which existed before the flood. 27. If city staff wants a second access point into the Peninsula, it should purchase land from Ed Cole or his company as he has offered publicly to sell it to him, and the city has said this might occur from the beginning. The problem of a lack of a secondary access road into the Peninsula was created by Iowa City staff and past councils. People have had homes along Taft Speedway long before the Peninsula and Idyllwild were developed and fairness dictates not disturbing the Taft Speedway owners' property rights. 28. Idyllwild was knowingly built in a swamp /bog /wetland. Former city councils were warned by many, including Taft Speedway residents and Professor Kennedy, whose specialty was river hydraulics and who was the chairman of the National Academy of Science Committee on Hydrodynamic Computer Models for Flood Insurance Studies, over the years, not to permit development. Despite this, Iowa City permitted development. Many long term Iowa City residents are very familiar with the Idyllwild property and understand it was built in a floodplain. In effect, Taft Speedway residents have been whistleblowers. Penalizing the whistle blowers by building a huge levee or other flood mitigation in front of their homes Report date: 5/16/2012 is very bad public policy. University of Iowa Professor Kennedy's written statement to the Iowa City Council about the Peninsula is dated January 9, 1990, and is available. 29. University of Iowa College of Law Professor Samuel M. Fahr sent a letter to Iowa City Council dated January 17, 1990, warning the council not to develop Idyllwild. This is also available. 30. 1 recall the controversy when Idyllwild was developed, many of the owner occupiers of Idyllwild are older than I am, have lived in Iowa City for years, and should remember it as well. The possibility of flooding was a risk that was knowingly assumed by many who bought property in Idyllwild. 31. Iowa City historian, Irving Webber, wrote much about the Iowa River in the Idyllwild area and his work is still readily available (check http: / /digital.lib.uiowa.edu /weber /index.php or the U of I library or Prairie Lights Bookstore for his books). 32. The flood model does not show what the impact of the levee would be on the other side of the river independent of other projects. The impact on the entire area under the river bluffs, including Iowa City Park and all surrounding infrastructure (which review should also include some impacted residences along lower Park Road and Lee Street) should be analyzed. What is the projected impact of any proposed Idyllwild flood mitigation on the other side of the river independent of other projects? What is the uncertainty associated with this projected impact? The current flood modeling assumes that the storm sewers of Parkview Terrace will be updated. This has not occurred and no money is budgeted for this project. Any future modeling should take this into account. Evaluate floods of all stages. 33. Despite all of the known expertise, no one accurately predicted where the water would go and to what extent during the recent Hurricane Irene. If the Army Corps of Engineers truly understood where water goes, there would be better predictions about flooding. What guarantees will the city make about its consultant's projections about where the water will go if flood mitigation is pursued for Idyllwild? Is the Iowa City Council willing to issue hold harmless agreements to those of us who are potentially adversely impacted by flood mitigation? 34. The flood model, based on free software from the Army Corps of Engineers, may be the best model that is available but it is far from perfect and should not be relied upon with the certainty with which some Iowa City staffers are using it. 35. Iowa City's flood model, building upon the Ayres flood model (which used software from the Army Corps of Engineers), contains many assumptions and inputs which are not available to the public and may or may not be accurate. David Purdy and Jeff Davidson, of Iowa City staff, need to be educated about the flood model and to what extent any flood model should be relied upon. The projected water surface elevations have been used by some city staffers as though the numbers are set in stone. Will you educate Iowa City staffers and the city council about flood models? What assumptions are used in the flood model relied upon by Iowa City? Please list every assumption and list with specificity where human judgment was applied in using the model. I understand the flood model can predict the 2008 flood model in retrospect; however, floods have never been the same and any future floods will not be exactly like 2008. 36. Who controls the use of the flood model to predict the impact of the proposed alternatives, including a levee, on Parkview Terrace? Who will supervise the consultant who controls the use of the flood model? It should not be Iowa City staff who have applied for and pushed for flood mitigation for Idyllwild. It should be someone independent of Iowa City staff. 37. Some city staffers seem emotionally attached to getting flood mitigation for Idyllwild and may not make or recommend a decision which is in the best interests of the city and its property owners. Could the consultant report directly and independently to Tom Markus, the city manager? Some of the Idyllwild owners have sent comments directly to David Purdy on Iowa City staff. Is Mr. Purdy soliciting comments in favor of Idyllwild's flood mitigation and forwarding them to city council? This bias, if it exists, is a potential concern. 38. The Parkview Terrace storm sewers should be updated. This becomes an issue, especially in winter time when the streets ice and becomes difficult to drive on. Iowa City is wrong not to budget for and maintain this type of necessary infrastructure. The city's flood model assumed Parkview Terrace's storm sewer improvements would be made. In fact, the city should properly repair and maintain all known existing infrastructure problems before taxpayer subsidized flood mitigation is provided for a private condo development. 39. How much money was spent to restore Iowa City Park following the flood of 2008? 40. In a flooding event, there are likely to be multiple reasons for flooding. In 2008, the Iowa River flooded, it rained, and water came up from the ground. The sandbags didn't work and a lot of money and time would have been saved had people understood this sooner. Even though pumps were trying to pump water out from behind the sandbags, the water came up faster than the pumps could pump. If a levee or other flood mitigation is built, it won't stop water coming up from the ground and it is likely that pumps may not work. Even if they do, they are going to be expensive to procure, maintain, and operate. How much are these costs? Who will be responsible for cleaning clogged drains during a flood (per Bob BentonOiE "s comments at the Parkview Church meeting and his editorial to the Press Citizen)? 41. Unlike the Idyllwild neighborhood, the Parkview Terrace neighborhood did not hire an expensive consultant. We've all heard from Terri Miller Chait (who is behind Idyllwild Development 11, Inc. which owns 9 condos and 12 parcels of land) how many sandbags it would take to protect Idyllwild; however, what is the point? Whether you use sandbags or a flood wall, the protection is illusory. The fact is water comes up from the ground and it comes from the Report date: 5/16/2012 sky along with the river, and such mitigation measures are likely a waste of taxpayer dollars. Sandbags or a flood wall won't stop water from the coming up through the ground or the sky. 42. There are massive tiling efforts going on in Iowa right now (probably for fear of future regulation). This will drain more water into the rivers. Plus there is a lot of tiling that no one knows about. How does this impact future flooding events in Parkview Terrace and the surrounding area? Parkview Terrace remains better off without flood mitigation for Idyllwild and the Parkview Church. 43. The Idyllwild condo buildings could be raised. One commentator at the recent Parkview church meeting accurately pointed out that the University of Iowa moved Calvin Hall using oxen. The large Czech museum in Cedar Rapids was recently moved. Mary Katherine Wallace of Idyllwild has said they would raise their buildings if they could - this can be done and so long as taxpayers don't fund it, leave them with that option. 44. Iowa City's application for money to help build the levee stated the levee would provide "a permanent access to the Peninsula neighborhood" Raising Foster Road, less expensive than building a levee, will achieve the cit's goal. Why not raise the part of Foster Road which flooded? 45. Foster Road did not flood in 1993 and did not flood much in 2008. Please verify how much exactly Foster road flooded in 2008? Don't rely on city staff to determine how much of Foster Road flooded - look at aerial photographs. You can see from the picture below of Idyllwild and Foster Road (at the right of the picture) that Foster Road didn't flood much in 2008.46. Iowa City could easily be liable for damages for inverse condemnation even though the Taft Speedway owners did not accept a buyout after they remediated their properties. What is the cost of this and who pays for it? 47. How many construction or other easements or right of ways would the city need to get to build the levee? From whom would these need to be obtained? What is the projected time frame to get these easements if they are not voluntarily sold to the city? What are the costs? 48. Will the city have to condemn any property to build the levee or implement other flood mitigation? If so, what and how much? From whom? How long is the condemnation process expected to take if consent is not voluntarily given? 49. It is likely that work would have to be done on Idyllwild's property if flood mitigation is pursued. Is the city required to get permission or legal property rights to proceed on Idyllwild property? If so, is from whom is permission required "board or majority or unanimous consent required? What will the city do to appease those owners in Idyllwild who do not want the levee or other flood mitigation? What happens if some Idyllwild owners do not agree to flood mitigation on their property? What would be the costs of the city's condemning an Idyllwild building or two to get the levee built? Have the owners of the impacted condos been notified? Would Iowa City have to get the consent of all condo owners since the owners have an undivided interest in the whole? Has anyone explained to the condo owners closest to Taft Speedway what the footprint of the levee or other flood mitigation would be? Why didn't city staff better investigate this before filing the application? 50. The presence of the levee may stop groundwater from escaping from Idyllwild and, if Iowa City is hit with a rainfall like Dubuque recently received, the groundwater couldn't be pumped out fast enough to avoid causing property damage. This damage might not be insured. Property owners can purchase flood insurance to cover damage caused by flooding and water back up coverage to cover some damage caused by water backup. Purchasing insurance to cover damage caused by groundwater is much more problematic, and may, in fact, be unavailable. Even if Idyllwild owners could get insurance for damage caused by groundwater one time, it is unlikely to be available a second time. What do you advise Idyllwild owners to do about this? 51. Some Idyllwild residents have indicated they were not eligible for a buyout. More accurately, Idyllwild condominium owners would have had to reach agreement on a buyout because of how condominiums are owned. Because they could not reach agreement and some owners wanted to be eligible for relief funding, Idyllwild made a formal request before the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting on October 6, 2008, to "not be included on the FEMA hazard mitigation grant program buyout list." (This is available from Iowa Ciy's public documents.) In light of this, it seems more than a little ironic for anyone in Idyllwild to complain it is okay to build a levee and flood Taft Speedway residents because the Taft residents rejected a buyout. In fact, Taft Speedway residents have lived along the river for far longer than Idyllwild residents, and the Taft Speedway residents have admirably accepted the risks of living along the river. The Idyllwild residents, who did purchase property along a river should likewise accept the risk. 52. A levee cannot be placed on property purchased with HMGP (FEMA) funds. You can confirm this with Ken Sessa of FEMA and John Wageman of Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Iowa City's own buyout map shows that 3 properties on Taft Speedway were purchased with HMGP funds. Favoring one group of "elite" citizens at the expense of others is wrong. 53. No one can know what changes in terrain and landscape will occur overtime. How will your report and advice address this? 54. Where does the trailer park drain to? Where does the Peninsula and the Frakes development and other developments drain to? If they drain into Idyllwild, how does the city plan to handle this if flood mitigation is pursued? If the city pushes for further development of the Peninsula, how will this impact how the Peninsula drains and any proposed flood mitigation? If flood mitigation for Idyllwild is pursued, where does the city intend to pump the water from the dry side to? Will the city be dumping more water on the Taft Speedway residents when the Report date: 5/16/2012 river rises in the future? 55. Not all of Idyllwild condo owners support the levee. Bob Benson, an Idyllwild resident, wrote a letter to the editor of the Press Citizen strongly opposing the levee. I will forward this to you by separate email. 56. What is the answer to the issue Cliff Pirnat raised at the recent Parkview Church meeting? Why in 2008 was the water proportionately so much higher in Iowa City than the Amanas when compared to the 1993 flood? 57. Were all areas used in the flood model and impacting the watershed gauged? I understand some gauges were broken and there may not be much history available there? Is this so? 58. What projected impact did the volume of storage lost in the Coralville Reservoir due to sedimentation have? Why couldn't the Coralville Reservoir be made deeper? Why couldn't the Iowa River under the Park Road bridge be made deeper? 59. My overwhelming impression is that there was not enough prior information of large scale flood patterns to accurately create a flood model for future use "in other words, the flood model is a good guess? Would you comment in detail about this? 60. What would the impact on water surface elevations be of getting rid of the Burlington St. dam? 61. Iowa City's application for a levee to protect Idyllwild and the Parkview Church was sloppy at best and pitted residents and neighborhoods against each other leaving at least some residents with the impression that the city is favoring a neighborhood that is perceived as being well off against other neighborhoods perceived as being less well off. Does Iowa City want to engage in this kind of class discrimination? 62. Gary Davisson of Taft Speedway asked at the meeting at the Parkview Church Koewhat about the animals? Koe I would "How will you protect the birds, including but not limited to, bald eagles, their nesting sites and habitats? The wildlife and birds predate the Idyllwild and the levee. The raising of Taft Speedway would create a change in use that could impact all forms of wildlife. 63. The application filed by Iowa City staff was misleading. For example, the application project description states that'The Idyllwild levee project will provide an alternate access to the Peninsula neighborhood! Once constructed, the levee (with roadway on top) would provide a permanent access to the Peninsula neighborhood 11 Unfortunately, the city permitted the Peninsula development knowing it only had one access, and the city does not own the properly necessary to complete a road into the Peninsula. The city could not provide permanent access to the Peninsula using the levee, and the application was deceptive in this regard. If the council approves the levee and the city starts building it with a road on top, will the city have to repay federal funds if it cannot complete the road into the Peninsula because it does not own the necessary properly" fact well known to the city from the beginning? 64. Next, the application states that "Foster Road is inundated during 100 year flood events, forcing the evacuation of the entire neighborhood!!! This should certainly be verified using aerial photographs of the 1993 and 2008 floods. I do not believe that Foster Road flooded during 1993, and it was not fully inundated during 2008. There was access to the Peninsula during the 2008 flood through the Ed Cole trailer park. This access was used by emergency vehicles and by some of the residents to access their properties. Access through the Ed Colettrailer park property could be developed for everyday use. 65. The application goes on to state that Koethe proposed levee /road length is 4200 LF and would be constructed above the 500 year flood elevation on the existing footprint of Taft speedway and No Name Road-I'm no engineer; however, even I know this is not true as Taft Speedway is a very narrow road and the levee will need to be wide to accommodate the 500 year height plus three feet with a road and bike trail on top. The levee if built, will intrude into the front yards of the people that live in the homes along Taft Speedway, a fact the city failed to affirmatively state in its application. The proposed levee may also require condemning an Idyllwild unit or two or other property and relocating the Idyllwild pond along Taft Speedway. What is the estimated width and height of the levee and what will be its footprint? Was the Stanley reports diagram accurate? 66. In section 10 of the application, the city checked "Urgent Need" as the national object to be met. W re now three years beyond the flood and there is still no "serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community" This community is doing far better than most others during this bad economic cycle. The money could and should be better spent elsewhere. 67. Given the number of front yards impacted and the probable costs of future litigation, it is likely that the city underestimated the "Related Construction Costs" category on page 5 of the application. What is your estimate o "related construction costs" and what does it specifically include? 68. On page 6, the application notes that "Foster Road - provides the single means of access to the Peninsula neighborhood and strongly implied that "the entire Peninsula neighborhood was evacuated"" -during the 100 year flood. 1) Iowa City knowingly developed the Peninsula with one access and shouln't use disaster money to solve an existing and known planning problem (this was accurately pointed out by Cathy Wilcox at the recent Parkview Church meeting), 2) 1 do not recall Foster Road flooding during the 1993 flood and this should be checked, and 3) Foster Road could be raised to protect against a 2008 flood which would be millions of dollars less expensive than a levee. How many millions of dollars less expensive would raising Foster Road be than the alternatives you identify? The application does not state that Foster Road would not need to be raised very much to provide access during future events. 69. CDBG disaster money should not be used to add a bike trail that did not exist before the flood. In addition, the city's claims that it needs to provide "assurance to those otherwise reluctant to Report date: 5/16/2012 move back to the neighborhood is misplaced." The condos are full and the Peninsula problems, which existed long before the 2008 flood, cannot be attributed to the flood. 70. The application states on page 8 that "[t]he path will provide pedestrian accommodations to an area where there were previously none." This is not true plus Iowa City doesn't own the necessary property to create a trail where the planners want one. I can easily walk along the Foster Road sidewalk into the Peninsula. I can also easily walk from Coralville across the bridge into the Peninsula. Adding a road on top of a levee won't help pedestrian access, even during a flood. No one is allowed to drive on top of a levee during a flood event. Confirm this with the National Guard. 71. The application fails to state that during 2008 Idyllwild was flooding not just from river water but from ground water as well. The levee will not protect against this and may, in fact, trap the groundwater. 72. The timeline for the project stated in the levee has been blown. Approval should be rescinded. 73. Interestingly, the city failed in its application to mention 1) affirmatively the residents on Taft Speedway, 2) the number of minorities adversely impacted by the levee (why didn't this show up in the Minority Impact Statement?), and 3) that there was infrastructure, homes, and people on the other side of the river who would be adversely impacted by the levee. 74. The city did append some correspondence from Taft Speedway residents but failed to affirmatively mention them in the application. Nevertheless, the state approved the application with very little, if any review, apparently in a hurry to get 2008 disaster money spent. Now is the time to ask whether this application would have been approved if all facts had been disclosed. Surely there are higher priority disaster needs across Iowa for this money than a levee to protect an elite private condominium development? 75. How much per Idyllwild unit would any flood mitigation alternative cost? 76. Iowa City's floodgate project is also a bad idea. Why is Iowa City cooperating with Coralville on this floodgate and other proposed flood mitigation by Coralville-- especially since it appears Coralville is bribing Von Maur with millions of dollars to leave Iowa City? 77. Iowa City should clean up the river and use its connection to the river as a marketing feature instead of building unwanted flood mitigation. The likelihood of Idyllwild flooding was well publicized before it was built, the river was clearly evident when people bought property along its banks, and both sides of the river should be similarly situated when it comes to flooding, flood mitigation, including a levee or flood wall, should not be built on one side to endanger the other. Additionally, the Peninsula was knowingly developed with only one access, and Peninsula residents understood the same. Taxpayers should not be forced to bail out any Idyllwild owners or Peninsula residents. The property tax base can be protected through the purchase of flood insurance, and Foster Road can be raised much less expensively than a levee can be built. Frankly, Iowa City's entire application for funding is suspect. The proposed Idyllwild levee project should go away and no flood mitigation should be built Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 9/26/2011 Comment ID: 33 ❑ Closed Name: Murphy, Mary Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: I wanted to add an additional comment about alternative flood mitigation for Idyllwild. I do not support providing a flood wall or other flood mitigation to Idyllwild, whether federal and /or Iowa City taxpayers pay for it or the condo association and others do. It likely wouldn't work and /or might send water elsewhere- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 9/26/2011 Comment ID: 36 ❑ Closed Name: Murphy, Mary Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Email Comment: Dear Mr. Engel, Please find my comments below. I've also attached them as a WORD file. I support no flood mitigation (temporary or otherwise) for Idyllwild and the Parkview Church and believe this to be the worst kind of government boondoggle. I submitted these comments to website link for this study; however, the picture below showing how little of Foster Road actually flooded during 2008 did not go through your website. I ask that your company pay particular attention to how little of Foster Road had water on it during the 2008 flood. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Mary Murphy 1-When was the Coralville Dam built? At what time was each individual Idyllwild building completed? Did any Idyllwild buildings flood in 1993? If so, to what extent, and is there photographic documentation to support the same? Isn't it true that the Idyllwild development has flooded only once since it was built, and that was during the flood of 2008? 2-The best and most fair solution is to do nothing. The contention that there must be a taxpayer funded solution (levee, temporary, or otherwise) to Idyllwild is wrong. Idyllwild was knowingly built on a bog /wetland and in the riverbank. Any flood mitigation for Idyllwild rewards bad planning, is horrible public policy, failed last time and should not be invested in a second time. Idyllwild residents and the condo association should purchase flood insurance and the condo association should set up a reserve for damages not covered by flood insurance. Your report should reflect this- 3- Asking Iowa City property owners to subsidize Idyllwild owners with a taxpayer paid levee or other flood mitigation at the expense of Taft Speedway and Parkview Terrace homes, which existed long before Idyllwild was even built, is ludicrous. The list of Idyllwild owners that would be protected includes those listed below. See http : / /iowacity.iowaassessors.com/. I support no flood mitigation for Idyllwild! A)Bob Bowlsby, the current athletic director for Stanford and the former athletic director of the University of Iowa, and son Kyle own 118 Pentire Circle. B)Terri Miller Chait of Idyllwild Development II, Inc. owns 9 condos + 12 parcels of land (not just the several properties she acknowledged at the recent Parkview Church meeting). C) Bocway Investments, LLC owns 14 condos, D) Hills Bank owns 3 units, E) Quad Hawk, Inc. owns 4 condos (with one of the principals likely owning another), and F) Jeff Miller Construction owns 3 condos. G) Sally Cline, a realtor for Iowa Realty, who might financially benefit from the future sales of Idyllwild units. Kurt Kimmerle is also listed at her address- 4- Flood insurance will protect the tax base, and it's wrong to punish the people on Taft Speedway and across the river because the Idyllwild board and residents failed to purchase flood insurance prior to the 2008 flood- 5- The Idyllwild condo association likely now has flood insurance. The developer and the condo association may be pushing for a levee or other flood mitigation because they are concerned about being sued if nothing is done and the development floods again. This, if true, is not Iowa City's nor its taxpayers' problem to solve- 6- Some Idyllwild units have been rented since 2008. The condo association claims rentals will only be allowed for a few years then the property must revert to owner occupied housing. I'm skeptical. There are enough owners of rental units in Idyllwild that they could vote to maintain rentals into the future. Idyllwild's by -laws could also be amended. You can search rental permits in Iowa City online at http: / /www.iowa- city.org /icgov /apps /gen /rentals.asp. 7.Currently, Idyllwild is under - assessed by the assessor's office, and Iowa City could be deriving more taxes. An Iowa City assessor stated that the units' assessed value reflects concerns about the potential liability of buyers as evidenced by their liability during the 2008 flood. This concern is Report date: 5/16/2012 misplaced. About '% of Idyllwild units are rented out and the owners are receiving fair market rent —thus getting 100% use out of their investment. Their investment and the investment of those owners who occupy their homes should now be protected by flood insurance so their liability is much more limited than during the 2008 flood. 8.Further, one reason Idyllwild owners had so much liability during the 2008 flood is because the condo association made an overly expensive contract for cleanup and required all owners to contribute. The cleanup company seemed to know what FEMA would pay residents and charged accordingly. This cost was much more than most other Iowa City water damaged property owners paid. If there is a next flood, the condo association will surely make a wiser clean up contract and minimize their liability. In fact, it could make arrangements for such a contingency now- 9-Some investors in Idyllwild bought from flood victims who sold more cheaply than they could have. Find Idyllwild rentals by using Google; Idyllwild units have been advertised on Bocway's website, Craigslist, and other places. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize the profits of these investors- 10-At the end of the day, the Idyllwild owners own what they bought —the intrinsic value remains the same, the residences can still be used for their intended purposes and the land can still be walked on- 11 The other side of the river, including Iowa City Park and Parkview Terrace, is left unprotected. The water's going somewhere and no one else wants it. Even a few inches could mean the difference between homes and downstream businesses flooding and not flooding. Parkview Terrace is much better off without a levee —this is true regardless of whether the Park Road bridge is replaced- 12-Instead of a levee or other non - insurance flood mitigation for Idyllwild, raise Foster Road, dead end Taft Speedway, and save taxpayers millions of dollars. How much money would be saved by doing this? Please show the cost savings under Iowa City's Gateway project and this project. CDBG disaster funds are federal tax dollars. General obligation bonds issued by Iowa City need to be repaid with property taxes. Idyllwild is not essential public infrastructure like a hospital or fire station —don't spend our tax money on a levee or other flood mitigation for itl 13-If efforts to provide flood mitigation (levee or other) adversely impact my home in the future, we will sue. Others may also. The costs of any lawsuits should be considered in any cost benefit analysis of flood mitigation. 14. Levees are ugly and no amount of dressing them up can make them not look like a levee. Flood mitigation on Taft Speedway can be seen from across the river in Iowa City Park's and is a horrible legacy to leave those who enjoy the river view from the Iowa City Park river trail- 15-Does or did the Hayek law firm (past or present) represent any of the owners of Idyllwild condominiums or developers of the Idyllwild area? If so, please provide details- 16-An Iowa City planner has shared that the university may be interested in the Parkview Church property for a dorm or a private developer for more housing. I've also seen documentation on the city's website that suggests more Idyllwild units could be added. Permitting more development in this area that should be a bog/wetland is horrible public policy and potentially expensive for taxpayers- 17-Does any party other than the Parkview Church have an interest in the Parkview Church property? Has any party or parties purchased an option on or other interest in the property? Does the university have an interest in the Parkview Church property? 18-Proponents of the levee seem to believe that it is okay to flood some property owners and /or put them on the "wrong" side of a levee because these owners were offered a buyout; however, this rationale is faulty and misleading. All property owners in Parkview Terrace were not and are not eligible for a buyout, and many impacted property owners started repair work because they could not afford to wait around to see if the city came up with money for a buyout- 19-Plus, a requirement of using federal money to buy out properties was that the buyout be voluntary. Frightening Iowa City residents into selling their homes by threatening them with flood mitigation which could push future water at them robs the buyout of any voluntary nature and certainly violates the spirit of the federal buyout requirements, if not the legal requirements. Report date: 5/16/2012 20.My family, who lives in Parkview Terrace, is not eligible for a buyout and doesn't want one. There are other owners who were not eligible for a buyout. There is no effective buyout strategy for Parkview Terrace and Iowa City will not own 100% of the homes in Parkview Terrace after the "voluntary "buyouts are complete- 21 -A Parkview Terrace resident, accurately explained at the recent meeting that people put money back into their houses before the city legally offered them a buyout and that they could not afford to later take a financial loss by accepting the buyout which only became available later- 22-What is the specific date the city had the money in hand to make a "legal buyout offer' that was capable of being accepted to 1) eligible Parkview Terrace residents, and 2) Taft Speedway residents? Note, I am not asking for the date that the city mentioned a buyout may be possible or asked about interest in a buyout. 23.A levee, if built, it will be very large and noticeable, and Idyllwild may not attract the same professional /high income demographics it did in the past. The levee would remove Idyllwild's connection to the river. What would the impact on the Idyllwild property tax base be of a big ugly levee next to the condominiums? 24.lowa City's public works department's failure to promptly demolish vacant homes is creating neighborhood blight in Parkview Terrace and helping suppress property values there. These are homes which had been completed rehabilitated after the flood- 25-Do all Idyllwild condo owners understand how tall and wide the levee would be? How close would this levee physically come to any of the closest Idyllwild units? Will any Idyllwild condo units need to be sacrificed? What happens to the Idyllwild pond closest to Taft Speedway if flood mitigation to protect Idyllwild is pursued? 26-City staff knowingly permitted development of the Peninsula with only one access point to try to create a "new urbanism" development. (Other private owners who have wanted to develop property with only one access point have been denied.) The Peninsula development failed during a time period when other housing developments were successful. This information can be verified by looking at the original plans and due dates for the Peninsula. Our taxes have subsidized the Peninsula enough in terms of paying for city staff, infrastructure, the single family new construction subsidized home program, etc. Simply looking at sales to determine whether the Peninsula has been successful is misleading since many of the sales have been subsidized. All subsidies and future development of the Peninsula should stop. Disaster grants should not be abused to solve a known planning problem which existed before the flood- 27-If city staff wants a second access point into the Peninsula, it should purchase land from Ed Cole or his company as he has offered publicly to sell it to him, and the city has said this might occur from the beginning. The problem of a lack of a secondary access road into the Peninsula was created by Iowa City staff and past councils. People have had homes along Taft Speedway long before the Peninsula and Idyllwild were developed and fairness dictates not disturbing the Taft Speedway owners' property rights- 28-Idyllwild was knowingly built in a swamp /bog /wetland. Former city councils were warned by many, including Taft Speedway residents and Professor Kennedy, whose specialty was river hydraulics and who was the chairman of the National Academy of Science Committee on Hydrodynamic Computer Models for Flood Insurance Studies, over the years, not to permit development. Despite this, Iowa City permitted development. Many longterm Iowa City residents are very familiar with the Idyllwild property and understand it was built in a floodplain. In effect, Taft Speedway residents have been whistleblowers. Penalizing the whistle blowers by building a huge levee or other flood mitigation in front of their homes is very bad public policy. University of Iowa Professor Kennedy's written statement to the Iowa City Council about the Peninsula is dated January 9, 1990, and is available- 29-University of Iowa College of Law Professor Samuel M. Fahr sent a letter to Iowa City Council dated January 17, 1990, warning the council not to develop Idyllwild. This is also available. 30.1 recall the controversy when Idyllwild was developed, many of the owner occupiers of Idyllwild are older than I am, have lived in Iowa City for years, and should remember it as well. The possibility of flooding was a risk that was knowingly assumed by many who bought property in Idyllwild. Report date: 5/16/2012 31 -Iowa City historian, Irving Webber, wrote much about the Iowa River in the Idyllwild area and his work is still readily available (check http: / /digital.lib.uiowa.edu /weber /index.php or the U of I library or Prairie Lights Bookstore for his books). 32-The flood model does not show what the impact of the levee would be on the other side of the river independent of other projects. The impact on the entire area under the river bluffs, including Iowa City Park and all surrounding infrastructure (which review should also include some impacted residences along lower Park Road and Lee Street) should be analyzed. What is the projected impact of any proposed Idyllwild flood mitigation on the other side of the river independent of other projects? What is the uncertainty associated with this projected impact? The current flood modeling assumes that the storm sewers of Parkview Terrace will be updated. This has not occurred and no money is budgeted for this project. Any future modeling should take this into account. Evaluate floods of all stages- 33- Despite all of the known expertise, no one accurately predicted where the water would go and to what extent during the recent Hurricane Irene. If the Army Corps of Engineers truly understood where water goes, there would be better predictions about flooding. What guarantees will the city make about its consultant's projections about where the water will go if flood mitigation is pursued for Idyllwild? Is the Iowa City Council willing to issue hold harmless agreements to those of us who are potentially adversely impacted by flood mitigation? 34-The flood model, based on free software from the Army Corps of Engineers, may be the best model that is available but it is far from perfect and should not be relied upon with the certainty with which some Iowa City staffers are using it. 35.lowa City's flood model, building upon the Ayres flood model (which used software from the Army Corps of Engineers), contains many assumptions and inputs which are not available to the public and may or may not be accurate. David Purdy and Jeff Davidson, of Iowa City staff, need to be educated about the flood model and to what extent any flood model should be relied upon. The projected water surface elevations have been used by some city staffers as though the numbers are set in stone. Will you educate Iowa City staffers and the city council about flood models? What assumptions are used in the flood model relied upon by Iowa City? Please list every assumption and list with specificity where human judgment was applied in using the model. I understand the flood model can predict the 2008 flood model in retrospect; however, floods have never been the same and any future floods will not be exactly like 2008. 36-Who controls the use of the flood model to predict the impact of the proposed alternatives, including a levee, on Parkview Terrace? Who will supervise the consultant who controls the use of the flood model? It should not be Iowa City staff who have applied for and pushed for flood mitigation for Idyllwild. It should be someone independent of Iowa City staff- 37- Some city staffers seem emotionally attached to getting flood mitigation for Idyllwild and may not make or recommend a decision which is in the best interests of the city and its property owners. Could the consultant report directly and independently to Tom Markus, the city manager? Some of the Idyllwild owners have sent comments directly to David Purdy on Iowa City staff. Is Mr. Purdy soliciting comments in favor of Idyllwild's flood mitigation and forwarding them to city council? This bias, if it exists, is a potential concern. 38. The Parkview Terrace storm sewers should be updated. This becomes an issue, especially in wintertime when the streets ice and becomes difficult to drive on. Iowa City is wrong not to budget for and maintain this type of necessary infrastructure. The city's flood model assumed Parkview Terrace's storm sewer improvements would be made. In fact, the city should properly repair and maintain all known existing infrastructure problems before taxpayer subsidized flood mitigation is provided for a private condo development- 39- How much money was spent to restore Iowa City Park following the flood of 2008? 40-In a flooding event, there are likely to be multiple reasons for flooding. In 2008, the Iowa River flooded, it rained, and water came up from the ground. The sandbags didn't work and a lot of money and time would have been saved had people understood this sooner. Even though pumps were trying to pump water out from behind the sandbags, the water came up faster than the pumps could pump. If a levee or other flood mitigation is built, it won't stop water coming up from the ground and it is likely Report date: 5/16/2012 that pumps may not work. Even if they do, they are going to be expensive to procure, maintain, and operate. How much are these costs? Who will be responsible for cleaning clogged drains during a flood (per Bob Benton's comments at the Parkview Church meeting and his editorial to the Press Citizen)? 41. Unlike the Idyllwild neighborhood, the Parkview Terrace neighborhood did not hire an expensive consultant. We've all heard from Terri Miller Chait (who is behind Idyllwild Development II, Inc. which owns 9 condos and 12 parcels of land) how many sandbags it would take to protect Idyllwild; however, what is the point? Whether you use sandbags or a flood wall, the protection is illusory. The fact is water comes up from the ground and it comes from the sky along with the river, and such mitigation measures are likely a waste of taxpayer dollars. Sandbags or a flood wall won't stop water from the coming up through the ground or the sky- 42-There are massive tiling efforts going on in Iowa right now (probably for fear of future regulation). This will drain more water into the rivers. Plus there is a lot of tiling that no one knows about. How does this impact future flooding events in Parkview Terrace and the surrounding area? Parkview Terrace remains better off without flood mitigation for Idyllwild and the Parkview Church- 43-The Idyllwild condo buildings could be raised. One commentator at the recent Parkview church meeting accurately pointed out that the University of Iowa moved Calvin Hall using oxen. The large Czech museum in Cedar Rapids was recently moved. Mary Katherine Wallace of Idyllwild has said they would raise their buildings if they could —this can be done and so long as taxpayers don't fund it, leave them with that option. 44. Iowa City's application for money to help build the levee stated the levee would provide "a permanent access to the Peninsula neighborhood...." Raising Foster Road, less expensive than building a levee, will achieve the city's goal. Why not raise the part of Foster Road which flooded? 45-Foster Road did not flood in 1993 and did not flood much in 2008. Please verify how much exactly Foster road flooded in 2008? Don't rely on city staff to determine how much of Foster Road flooded —look at aerial photographs. You can see from the picture below of Idyllwild and Foster Road (at the right of the picture) that Foster Road didn't flood much in 2008. 46. Iowa City could easily be liable for damages for inverse condemnation even though the Taft Speedway owners did not accept a buyout after they remediated their properties. What is the cost of this and who pays for it? 47-How many construction or other easements or right of ways would the city need to get to build the levee? From whom would these need to be obtained? What is the projected time frame to get these easements if they are not voluntarily sold to the city? What are the costs? 48-Will the city have to condemn any property to build the levee or implement other flood mitigation? If so, what and how much? From whom? How long is the condemnation process expected to take if consent is not voluntarily given? 49-It is likely that work would have to be done on Idyllwild's property if flood mitigation is pursued. Is the city required to get permission or legal property rights to proceed on Idyllwild property? If so, is from whom is permission required —board or majority or unanimous consent required? What will the city do to appease those owners in Idyllwild who do not want the levee or other flood mitigation? What happens if some Idyllwild owners do not agree to flood mitigation on their property? What would be the costs of the city's condemning an Idyllwild building or two to get the levee built? Have the owners of the impacted condos been notified? Would Iowa City have to get the consent of all condo owners since the owners have an undivided interest in the whole? Has anyone explained to the condo owners closest to Taft Speedway what the footprint of the levee or other flood mitigation would be? Why didn't city staff better investigate this before filing the application? 50.The presence of the levee may stop groundwater from escaping from Idyllwild and, if Iowa City is hit with a rainfall like Dubuque recently received, the groundwater couldn't be pumped out fast enough to avoid causing property damage. This damage might not be insured. Property owners can purchase flood insurance to cover damage caused by flooding and water back up coverage to cover some damage caused by water backup. Purchasing insurance to cover damage caused by groundwater is Report date: 5/16/2012 much more problematic, and may, in fact, be unavailable. Even if Idyllwild owners could get insurance for damage caused by groundwater one time, it is unlikely to be available a second time. What do you advise Idyllwild owners to do about this? 51 -Some Idyllwild residents have indicated they were not eligible for a buyout. More accurately, Idyllwild condominium owners would have had to reach agreement on a buyout because of how condominiums are owned. Because they could not reach agreement and some owners wanted to be eligible for relief funding, Idyllwild made a formal request before the Iowa City City Council Special Formal meeting on October 6, 2008, to "not be included on the FEMA hazard mitigation grant program buyout list." (This is available from Iowa City's public documents.) In light of this, it seems more than a little ironic for anyone in Idyllwild to complain it is okay to build a levee and flood Taft Speedway residents because the Taft residents rejected a buyout. In fact, Taft Speedway residents have lived along the river for far longer than Idyllwild residents, and the Taft Speedway residents have admirably accepted the risks of living along the river. The Idyllwild residents, who did purchase property along a river should likewise accept the risk. 52.A levee cannot be placed on property purchased with HMGP (FEMA) funds. You can confirm this with Ken Sessa of FEMA and John Wageman of Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Iowa City's own buyout map shows that 3 properties on Taft Speedway were purchased with HMGP funds. Favoring one group of "elite" citizens at the expense of others is wrong- 53-No one can know what changes in terrain and landscape will occur over time. How will your report and advice address this? 54-Where does the trailer park drain to? Where does the Peninsula and the Frakes development and other developments drain to? If they drain into Idyllwild, how does the city plan to handle this if flood mitigation is pursued? If the city pushes for further development of the Peninsula, how will this impact how the Peninsula drains and any proposed flood mitigation? If flood mitigation for Idyllwild is pursued, where does the city intend to pump the water from the dry side to? Will the city be dumping more water on the Taft Speedway residents when the river rises in the future? 55-Not all of Idyllwild condo owners support the levee. Bob Benson, an Idyllwild resident, wrote a letter to the editor of the Press Citizen strongly opposing the levee. I will forward this to you by separate email- 56-What is the answer to the issue Cliff Pirnat raised at the recent Parkview Church meeting? Why in 2008 was the water proportionately so much higher in Iowa City than the Amanas when compared to the 1993 flood? 57-Were all areas used in the flood model and impacting the watershed gauged? I understand some gauges were broken and there may not be much history available there? Is this so? 58-What projected impact did the volume of storage lost in the Coralville Reservoir due to sedimentation have? Why couldn't the Coralville Reservoir be made deeper? Why couldn't the Iowa River under the Park Road bridge be made deeper? 59-My overwhelming impression is that there was not enough prior information of large scale flood patterns to accurately create a flood model for future use--in other words, the flood model is a good guess? Would you comment in detail about this? 60.What would the impact on water surface elevations be of getting rid of the Burlington St. dam? 61 -Iowa City's application for a levee to protect Idyllwild and the Parkview Church was sloppy at best and pitted residents and neighborhoods against each other leaving at least some residents with the impression that the city is favoring a neighborhood that is perceived as being well off against other neighborhoods perceived as being less well off. Does Iowa City want to engage in this kind of class discrimination? 62-Gary Davisson of Taft Speedway asked at the meeting at the Parkview Church "what about the animals? " I would add —How will you protect the birds, including but not limited to, bald eagles, their nesting sites and habitats? The wildlife and birds predate the Idyllwild and the levee. The raising of Taft Speedway would create a change in use that could impact all forms of wildlife. Report date: 5/16/2012 63-The application filed by Iowa City staff was misleading. For example, the application project description states that "The Idyllwild levee project will provide an alternate access to the Peninsula neighborhood.... Once constructed, the levee (with roadway on top) would provide a permanent access to the Peninsula neighborhood Unfortunately, the city permitted the Peninsula development knowing it only had one access, and the city does not own the property necessary to complete a road into the Peninsula. The city could not provide permanent access to the Peninsula using the levee, and the application was deceptive in this regard. If the council approves the levee and the city starts building it with a road on top, will the city have to repay federal funds if it cannot complete the road into the Peninsula because it does not own the necessary property —a fact well known to the city from the beginning? 64. Next, the application states that "Foster Road is inundated during 100 year flood events, forcing the evacuation of the entire neighborhood....." This should certainly be verified using aerial photographs of the 1993 and 2008 floods. I do not believe that Foster Road flooded during 1993, and it was not fully inundated during 2008. There was access to the Peninsula during the 2008 flood through the Ed Cole trailer park. This access was used by emergency vehicles and by some of the residents to access their properties. Access through the Ed Cole /trailer park property could be developed for everyday use- 65- The application goes on to state that "the proposed levee /road length is 4200 LF and would be constructed above the 500 year flood elevation on the existing footprint of Taft speedway and No Name Road" I'm no engineer; however, even I know this is not true as Taft Speedway is a very narrow road and the levee will need to be wide to accommodate the 500 year height plus three feet with a road and bike trail on top. The levee if built, will intrude into the front yards of the people that live in the homes along Taft Speedway, a fact the city failed to affirmatively state in its application. The proposed levee may also require condemning an Idyllwild unit or two or other property and relocating the Idyllwild pond along Taft Speedway. What is the estimated width and height of the levee and what will be its footprint? Was the Stanley report's diagram accurate? 66-In section 10 of the application, the city checked "Urgent Need" as the national object to be met. We're now three years beyond the flood and there is still no "serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community...." This community is doing far better than most others during this bad economic cycle. The money could and should be better spent elsewhere. 67. Given the number of front yards impacted and the probable costs of future litigation, it is likely that the city underestimated the "Related Construction Costs" category on page 5 of the application. What is your estimate of "related construction costs" and what does it specifically include? 68. On page 6, the application notes that "Foster Road... provides the single means of access to the Peninsula neighborhood" and strongly implied that "the entire Peninsula neighborhood was evacuated during the 100 year flood. 1) Iowa City knowingly developed the Peninsula with one access and shouldn't use disaster money to solve an existing and known planning problem (this was accurately pointed out by Cathy Wilcox at the recent Parkview Church meeting), 2) 1 do not recall Foster Road flooding during the 1993 flood and this should be checked, and 3) Foster Road could be raised to protect against a 2008 flood which would be millions of dollars less expensive than a levee. How many millions of dollars less expensive would raising Foster Road be than the alternatives you identify? The application does not state that Foster Road would not need to be raised very much to provide access during future events. 69.CDBG disaster money should not be used to add a bike trail that did not exist before the flood. In addition, the city's claims that it needs to provide "assurance to those otherwise reluctant to move back to the neighborhood is misplaced" The condos are full and the Peninsula problems, which existed long before the 2008 flood, cannot be attributed to the flood- 70- The application states on page 8 that "[t]he path will provide pedestrian accommodations to an area where there were previously none." This is not true plus Iowa City doesn't own the necessary property to create a trail where the planners want one. I can easily walk along the Foster Road sidewalk into the Peninsula. I can also easily walk from Coralville across the bridge into the Peninsula. Adding a road on top of a levee won't help pedestrian access, even during a flood. No one is allowed to drive on top of a levee during a flood event. Confirm this with the National Guard. Report date: 5/16/2012 71 The application fails to state that during 2008 Idyllwild was flooding not just from river water but from ground water as well. The levee will not protect against this and may, in fact, trap the groundwater- 72- The timeline for the project stated in the levee has been blown. Approval should be rescinded 73-interestingly, the city failed in its application to mention 1) affirmatively the residents on Taft Speedway, 2) the number of minorities adversely impacted by the levee (why didn't this show up in the Minority Impact Statement?), and 3) that there was infrastructure, homes, and people on the other side of the river who would be adversely impacted by the levee- 74- The city did append some correspondence from Taft Speedway residents but failed to affirmatively mention them in the application. Nevertheless, the state approved the application with very little, if any review, apparently in a hurry to get 2008 disaster money spent. Now is the time to ask whether this application would have been approved if all facts had been disclosed. Surely there are higher priority disaster needs across Iowa for this money than a levee to protect an elite private condominium development? 75-How much per Idyllwild unit would any flood mitigation alternative cost? 76.lowa City's floodgate project is also a bad idea. Why is Iowa City cooperating with Coralville on this floodgate and other proposed flood mitigation by Coralville-- especially since it appears Coralville is bribing Von Maur with millions of dollars to leave Iowa City? 77.lowa City should clean up the river and use its connection to the river as a marketing feature instead of building unwanted flood mitigation. The likelihood of Idyllwild flooding was well publicized before it was built, the river was clearly evident when people bought property along its banks, and both sides of the river should be similarly situated when it comes to flooding —flood mitigation, including a levee or flood wall, should not be built on one side to endanger the other. Additionally, the Peninsula was knowingly developed with only one access and Peninsula residents understood the same. Taxpayers should not be forced to bail out any Idyllwild owners or Peninsula residents. The property tax base can be protected through the purchase of flood insurance, and Foster Road can be raised much less expensively than a levee can be built. Frankly, Iowa City's entire application for funding is suspect. The proposed Idyllwild levee project should go away and no flood mitigation should be built Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 9/27/2011 Comment ID: 43 ❑ Closed Name: White, Jim Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Petition Comment: Petition signed by 237 individuals regarding the Taft Speedway and No Name Road Flood Mitigation and Iowa City Gateway (Dubuque St and Park Rd Bridge) Projects Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 9/28/2011 Comment ID: 37 ❑ Closed Name: Murphy, Mary Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Email Comment: Please include this letter to the editor of the Press - Citizen newspaper in the comments for the Taft Speedway flood mitigation. Thank you. Mary Council say no to proposed levee 10:05 PM, Sep. 3, 2011 1 Regarding Bob Elilotrs Writers' Group column Aug. 12: This should be the final nail in the coffin regarding the Iowa City Council's decision to consider constructing a levee on Taft Speedway. My wife and I purchased 22 Colwyn Court in Idyllwild Condominium Group in 2000. We relocated from Burlington to one of the most ideal spots to live in Iowa City. We asked whether we should buy flood insurance -- after all, we were going to build our unit only about 1'% blocks from the Iowa River. We were told emphatically, "No. That water level is all controlled by the dam and the Army Corps of Engineers." We elected to build. The flood of 2008 was a mistake. From our view, the Corps of Engineers allowed way too much water in the reservoir because it was summertime. When my family drove me by the reservoir three days before the flood, I remarked, "My goshl I've never seen so much water in the lake." So, Iowa City Council, don't build a levee down Taft Speedway. Don't hire more engineers to make your decision and waste more money. And for the final nail in the coffin: My unit had seven feet of water in it. Our insurance agent was surprised because it was clear water. The people down next to the river reported only six feet of dirty river water. My unit, it turns out, flooded from the hills to the north and from water coming down Foster Road hill from the northwest catch basin that the city built. It got plugged up with debris and floodwater drained eastward, where the city sandbagged between our buildings and the building south of us. Our condo has been cleaned up like new at a cost of $67,000. It is being paid for by the city and state with a five -year forgivable loan. This seems a less expensive way to go then that proposed levee down Taft Speedway. Robert Benson Iowa City Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 10/3/2011 Comment ID: 38 ❑ Closed Name: Shoemaker, Jaellen Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: While I think your task is extremely difficult, I want to, again, encourage you to do whatever is best to protect Idyllwild residents. I know your decision will make some happy, and some unhappy. I don't like the idea of my view undoubtedly being altered negatively; however, I REALLY don't like the idea of fish swimming through my living room again! You go, people---- - - - - -- -good luck Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 10/7/2011 Comment ID: 40 ❑ Closed Name: Reisetter, Phil Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: Please build the levee. It is the only way to protect Idyllwild as well as secondary access to the Penniula. With the protection of the levee the value of homes behind it should rise substantially. That would raise the city's tax revenue. Possibly the few houses at the water's edge could be raised to protect them. Homes in mosquito flats could also be elevated. Elevating Idyllwild does not appear feasible- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 10/9/2011 Comment ID: 39 ❑ Closed Name: Pappas, Susie Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: I have been an Idyllwild homeowner for over eight years. I love my home and my neighborhood, but after the 2008 flood, had I been offered a buyout, I would have accepted it without question. However, there was no buyout offer and I have a mortgage to pay, a job at ACT and need a place to live. So, like most of my neighbors, I felt like my only choice was to rebuild and return to Idyllwild. My greatest fear is not that we will experience another flood but that I will never be able to sell m y home. I am writing to reiterate my support for the proposed levee that will result from the elevation of Taft Speedway and No Name Road, It was difficult to voice my support at the first public meeting due to the domination of the meeting by those opposed to the project. After that meeting, it occurred to me that 1) we're not talking about a huge area behind the levee. How much could that add to the flooding of properties along the river? 2) Also, I wouldn't dream of objecting to the project to elevate Dubuque Street, even though it will certainly add to the flooding in Idyllwild. Narrow interests should not derail a project that has greater benefits to the entire city. In closing, I appreciate all that the City has done to assist Idyllwild in recovering from the flood. With the City's help and substantial investment from Idyllwild homeowners, Idyllwild homes are occupied and our homeowners association is financially stable. We are continuing to invest in our properties by maintaining roofs, cement, landscaping, etc. We have explored various options for doing flood mitigation on our own, but the scope of any such work is cost prohibitive. Assuming that the engineering challenges can be resolved, e.g. the diverson of storm water from uphill and the closing off of the river from the retention ponds, in the event of another flood, I feel the Taft Speedway levee is the best option to protect Idyllwild. If the levee is approved and the project moves forward, Idyllwild will remain a special, desireable place to live. Without it, I fear the neighborhood will eventually devolve into just one more neighborhood of student housing. Respectfully, Susie Pappas 58 Pentire Circle Iowa City 52245 Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 10/16/2011 Comment ID: 41 ❑ Closed Name: Walker, Joey Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: The levy project appears to be a waste of taxpayer money. This levy would supposedly protect a private condominium complex and a church which does not pay taxes. This levy might offer protection, but it would have the effect of having more water come into the Parkview Terrace neighborhood. There is also a chance that a levy would just hold the water like a bowl in a downpour on the Idlewyld side, and that water from the river would seep in under the levy and flood the Idlewyld area anyway. The most fair and least costly alternative for all seems to not build the levy- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 Date Received: 10/17/2011 Comment ID: 42 ❑ Closed Name: Crawford, Mike & Ginger Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Petition Comment: Petition signed by 83 individuals in the Idyllwild subdivision supporting the City of Iowa City flood mitigation project Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 10/17/2011 Comment ID: 52 ❑ Closed Name: Nevin, Ann Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: I want to express my view concerning the flood mitigation for the Taft speedway. I live in the park terrace neighborhood and believe it is wrong forthe levee to be built. The levee will displace waterto park terrace neighborhood and cause increase risk of flooding. Protecting one neighborhood and causing potential damage to another neighborhood does not seem like a reasonable solution. Please consider fairness in your decision. Thank You, Ann Nevin 891 Park PI Iowa City, IA 52246 Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 11/13/2011 Comment ID: 53 ❑ Closed Name: Cline, Sally Organization: Idyllwild Condo Owners Association Responder: Comment Source: Website Comment: Has the date been set forthe second meeting in November? Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 5/16/2012 APPENDIX F: MEETING MATERIALS FROM PUBLIC MEETING NO. 1 PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study come! lurpose of today's meeting is to discuss the Taft Speedway Flood ation Study, present opportunities for community participation and -r public input and comments. A map of the Taft Speedway area is ?d on the back of this handout. Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study The City of Iowa City is conducting a flood mitigation study for the Taft Speedway area. The Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study will identify flood protection alternatives based on public input, and assess the feasibility, cost, and the ability of each alternative to meet project goals. Flood protection alternatives will also be evaluated for impacts that may include: • Existing Infrastructure • Cost • Flood Insurance Rates • Hydrology • Flood Protection • Adjacent Infrastructure Projects • Hydraulic Impacts • Property Values • Residents • Right -of -Way • Social & Environmental • Technical Feasibility • Utilities The final report will document the evaluations to serve the City Council in making their decision on the appropriate path forward. The Study Process As the graphic below shows, today's public meeting is the first of two that the City of Iowa City will host to engage the public in the study process and gather public input and comments. First Public Meeting Second Public Meeting Draft Documentation Gather Public Input Presed Draft Findings Gather Additional Public Input Final Documentation ryst 25. 2DII November 2D11 1 Earl, December 2011 41 Late December 2011 Review Public Input Review Public Input We Want Your Input! • Fill out the survey at today's public meeting • Visit us at www.icgov.org and click on Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study to submit comments • Attend the next public meeting, scheduled for November 2011 IMa Can. lu„ .Crr P� °(c PAP �JQJ >1 of U ca 3 0 z 0 z U Y t a a 0 w w a N LL Q r L Q W �+ v E 3= � Q �C a 3 w � � � N 0 1 N 0!i 3WVN ON ❑ � a NORMAN ON pF r G�PNPpPO1 by 6 O0 ¢ W r N y N :3 O ° " O U � 0 CS 0 N LL N Y W 0 r J1 f i Ln .L0 T 0 0 LL 14A O U I 4w C O C m E e V O 0 �O 0 c m V ? d V C O m N �m m._ CL a c` a � W =s O N .O d e a m E E m e u a e D D y = J I.r 0 N d a E a u a D W 0 N d a a Z 0 N N Q a 3 v e a c a a3i Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Complete and submit this survey at the public meeting or follow the directions on the reverse side of this sheet to mail your comments. In evaluating the alternatives for the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study, what are your top priorities that should be considered? Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: Email: Contact Preference (circle one): Phone Email Do Not Contact How would you like to be informed about the next public meeting? (circle one) Direct Mail Additional Comments: Email Thank you for your input! Newspaper I IM orva11ueti Crry Please fold, fasten with tape and mail. No envelope necessary. Do not staple. Place Stamp Here Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study c/o Jason Reichart City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 a: 3 d Qi N N N N w c a' >a (n o T 7 w C C� G 0 O LL T 3 d N Q :) R r � a E Imo® �9 � c a� } u € € € € 5 € o S 2 _ 0 0 o ci ci ci ci ci o z - ci o 0 0 z m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ li � ❑ ❑ ❑ � � jpD 'm ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E 0 E 0 E E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0' E E o E E E E 0 E E E o2� E E o E f OQ C4 N o o MM M N 3 o W n 1 v V�i U 0 O � M � r4 a m m z � � d � y � � d •� lu � 3 � 4- (n,.I� U N l V CV <h 4 ui (O r m Of - - - - — In — r W N d a> N N D! C a' rn g [n o T V! C O R O O T d N Q w cc c H r ILE m o ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ & ❑ o ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 8 ❑ 8 ❑ 8 ❑W 8 ❑R 8 ❑ 8 ❑ Zj Ya t5 TS a'Y � Ya Y$ i5 X TS � � Ti Fi Fi Fi O O ❑ O ❑ O ❑ . ❑ O ❑ . ❑ O ❑ O ❑ O ❑ O ❑ O ❑ O ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ %] ❑ ❑ ❑ E W ® E E w ® E w ❑ E w la E w E w E w ❑ E w E w E w 44 E w ❑ E w ❑ E w ❑ kR -2 M 41 o r h M 9 M LA 5 c� M r^ �q d i 3 d pi s x N a N lA n A r qL r � � a m o sz S a L 9 ' -� N M a 16 f0 Il� OJ W O N M V M r m ® O N m Qi N t N N _ a c a Gf 5 o a 7 C O cc co O O T 3 d O Q {lam I1�= 1 4 iq T 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El V �' I O ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E E o E E E E E E E E E E w Li w ❑ E E w ❑ w E Vl y n fA ✓_ t - ; Un $ r� J a � 1 S 3 c I J u 34 v � Z w C � o > d tip s p 0 Ip L il o LJ O (V N1 V N fp Ih OJ Oi O d N $ Le N N m i a' (n o T a O c _O W� R a> a O O LL T 3 a m m n - r r 'I,!!_ I< LL -fl'j � 2 2 2 2 2 ® c m o ❑ a ❑ o ❑ z° o° ❑ z° o° ❑ z° v ❑ z° o° ❑ z° o° ❑ z° o° ❑ a° o° ❑ z° o° ❑ z° o° ❑ z° v ❑ z° v ❑ z° a° ❑ z° o° ❑ z° o ❑ 0 ❑ 00 ❑ o ❑ U ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ E w w Hwy E w E Ey L w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ 0 � m _ U 7 J � v a 3 d a � d ci iJ a � s L a � IBS 13 ) g N M @ b f0 I,� W W N till r-I e•-I O N Ln N N UA m Em LL t 1 t r � u g IIe a '1�® o -n_! 0 —l�;j o Il u I� } U O � � ♦ma ca O 0� � ,O O Ln 4-J =3 bA U 2 Q O t � O L O Z +J � a soft 3 i � V a L H Osomall 0 %1.m V " O a 3 0 0 u P luo Q _0 N 41 -0O O O L O O }' O N �O 4.i v v O O o > ° CL a O 0� _ ° o L `� O v L U N N _0 aA N a C: a 0� H a J � tuD tuD tuD � u O 4A U U U O Q- C: .j O 0- �: 0�Ln CL zj V) V) V) o v�� C u o O v C a O w U U u LL o � a f a � Ell 4Q O f = & OJ V / O O 1..1. U L 9 .w • , v 0 O 4Q O .k m Q 0 a� a� a� to a-+ fB > w _ O a a a CL 0 i _ _ H� a m 0 a L CL a t� 0 00 v 0 0 — v r •g R M 2 a) > � •L aj V!i > 0 4 >� > = a N E z > 0 0 Z � 0 � O 0 4, o _0 _0 N E N 0 v > ° 4 _ o to moo= •— 0 a) 0 i w 0 0 0 0 TD 0 75 z ._ - o � 0 o a o -0 o N E o o a) 0 W -0 -0 to Z a�,o to a, to 3 .— � O o = U U U do i }+ 0 O i � Q a ' a) dA 0� 4, 4, I 4 + N 0 H Ln L > 0 r- 0 U U 0 V w� 4-J 0� m _ O a a a CL 0 i _ _ H� a m 0 a L CL a t� 0 00 v 0 0 — v r •g R M 2 N i 0 ca O U N DC .3 a� s L _ •0 v 0 L m a� •• W V � LL LA s s ca s LM V 3 ca a � N GJ ._ cn _ o~ V ca 3 Am o I u R 0 � I u CD Ln cn N c 0 O -0 C: fu E o _0 0 0 Ca p N -0 -0 _ 0 0 0 O O > z 4-j o '� o z o = a� z � 0 � a� �� Z _> cn H � 0 = wo ryo 'N j C N O c�i� O N N O ca O E O N — O O v ca ca i U W W bD N bD S O 0 O C1A f6 C1A 0 U U Q U 0 O N N U N > > O w cn w >. U cn U u U Ll- H FA 4. 701 C6 CAA O O l C6 4f r �u ow V I�® O T 2 J— l U Uate--+ 4-J N ' O O N U 4A •— f N N .— -0 :3 .— C N O CL > a--+ O v ca � U O O Q •• > ._ � p LL� OC O c ca U r �u ow V I�® O T 2 L•J � V 0 0 W 4f Pa e yR V 0 U 4 W � O 3 i ti ON 3wdti ON it 3 w i �N a r U O iC w o) 17� 1 O y o�•• bo L Q m b QI N Q. F F 14U u go L� ,T^ V 1 L•J T 0 0 il VV n� nW, W V 1 J- J rr� VV d �O O a 'm m C c J O �r C d E a V d d D O N d a _ V � a c y, m � .id w rn c :n C Qa O_ N ` u_ Q � d d � c 4 4 a N O N `a a m z v� a. a v. 4 C a a m m 0 V il R I�p® o tinl � Al i O MW rzoll 2 W a� W v ' O � v •— v o U Ln N N n E CIS) U tw > a_+ N _ O N ca Q z l � I:fi® o �nl MW C6 a-J -0 � N C)- aA � E .� O U CO � c� a� E - � 0 U .- > _o 0 �U .. a� N Jc: 4� L i y of V a 0 i O W L 3 .; 4j QC a 0 0 o� s i a O •= V aj a kD m 0 • U a mc V tn 0 U 0 .O a-i 1 f�6 U L ate-+ ffNI N f6 �U t-A w W U (/) cz z W cl Q N E 0 cu Q 0 f6 W .bD 0 2 V 00 UP O U 0 U .O 0 Q M r Vol 2 W T i El I L•J M•► .5 O O LL M w [Uw' � V W 0 I O o� • i V) �7 Q- � •U CUM Q- C: O� M l]A +�.+ -00 0-0 O a L4.-V) o-0 4-1-0 V) a . , i V ,a O ^� O W /N T r\ W W U V) N O aJ U a-j u a--+ .[L CO U i N 4-J O c� Q V) O 00 aA C: 4-J � O v QQ- E 4-J -2 (a E � C d �- E e c to u � � u yy � A q PIZ* � c N O a` V Ow I�® o O Q N R LL O N N Q v O Z 0 N vi N w H 3 is 3 MW � � a c c :F a III K 0 N 9 C N I I I■ LL � m � C d �- E e c to u � � u yy � A q PIZ* � c N O a` V Ow I�® o O Q N R LL O N N Q v O Z 0 N vi N w H 3 is 3 MW FA O 4- to N fB U fB i N O O a 0 w co fB U N to O 0 2 4 .N LL LN U � a + = •— U a+ a O a-+ U a) 4- 0 d O U 0 d i U i (A fB i 4- U m N 4- U m Q c i 2 r I� } U O •L> W • • N .� W N W ' N }, U o o ;. � L }, • v I Itz 0 N Q 5 ts ' v N � � � N � A • tip O � � dA a U w U O N � � Q O 4- to N fB U fB i N O O a 0 w co fB U N to O 0 2 4 .N LL LN U � a + = •— U a+ a O a-+ U a) 4- 0 d O U 0 d i U i (A fB i 4- U m N 4- U m Q c i 2 r I� } U or- ^0 ryo `^o LLi '• P1/ i w m c v V_ 7 d ■ Y n' � U W L C 7 ;G a v � °C o c a LL � co co 0 Y U Y U O L a ro C LL r N N N O Z 0 N V1 N EO V ow MW N -1-j r•10 W t 0 ro L 0 r FA . 0 u 4-J U .cu f6 a-J ateJ f6 L 0 0 N a-J L 0 ateJ V) N T N L f6 U 0 4_I_- -J cu N a-J L 0 a-J 0 Q Q� a-J 2 �U 0 N N f6 r I� } U U _0 0 0 j >0 a+ cD 4- Ln 0 -0 a7 OC m _ 0 o -0 d10 to 0 i 0 i dA *a) z 0 v -0 0 0 0 -0 U10 0 Z N 0 cr ja -0 Q J) Z �: > > cn d W O E Y U cn r I� } U l ^^' c Ca U O 3 O 2 !' Y` �p ► a O a 3 — v ca � v O L +� o � � v � � v N Ei O o U C p O O+ i > 0 0 N .0 Q X N a 0 i v 0 Z i v v r I�® o I u R. IA WO M .tom^ V c 0 V � r r � u 0 U Q �IWO O LL O I� � F- M .tom^ V c 0 V :1 Li t 1 t *000 1 ^ r � u Iwo o E O a--+ aM' u Q� Q� U V) a.., C O S= N O O N O E N O N c- O O E s= O O Q i E � `� O O O O Sz — (1) +-j Q- -0 `n O N c� O Q O b-0 N O � N � O 0 Q- N Lr) b-0 Sz CL N N s= > C 0 E O D N U ci v :1 Li t 1 t *000 1 ^ r � u Iwo o o 0 O aM' u Q� U O N E O N E O O N V) O O O i (1) N N c� O b-0 O � N � O Ou CL CO :1 Li t 1 t *000 1 ^ APPENDIX G: COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETING NO. 2 TRANSCRIPT AND COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETING NO. 3 PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Public Involvement Report as of o6/20/2012 Comments Week of edia 5/28/12 Email 3 Week of 6/4/12 To Date 1 11 Letter Total 1 Meeting Comment Form 4 8 32 Petition 3 Website 3 24 Total 10 9 71 Meeting Attendance 5/31/12 49 6/6/12 68 Total 117 Open Comments Date Received: 5/31/2012 Comment ID: 54 Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Name: Wolf- Novak, Louise Address 609 Manor Dr, Iowa City, Organization: Phone: (319) 351 -0879 Responder: EMail: louisewolfnovak @gmail.com Comment: Please release cost estimates of each plan. This is important - -figure cost per property protected! Please remember aesthetics. Do no harm -- please do not leave an ugly wall. We understand this expensive project benefits Idylwild. However it comes at a great cost to citizens. It doesn't make sense to make a massive change which benefits some and hurts others. Please give us cost estimates before next week- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 5/31/2012 Comment ID: 55 Name: Allan, Gay Organization: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Address 708 Manor Dr, Iowa City, 52246 Phone: (319) 321 -7787 Responder: EMail: gay- allen @uiowa.edu Comment: 1) I've found the combination of charts, grids and maps a bit difficult to follow, at first sight. Is "do- nothing" a real alternative - or is it strictly for comparision purposes, as suggested by the November 2011 study? If "do- nothing" is in fact an alternative, it seems the best and fairest option. For a City to be in the business of protecting one area at the sacrifice of another will create resentments and unhappiness at the very least. "Do- nothing" and recommend individual flood insurance is my preliminary preference. 2) Some idea of comparative costs would have been useful at this meeting- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 5/31/2012 Comment ID: 56 Name: Swenning, Dave & Beth Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Address 44 Pentrice Cir, Iowa City, 52245 Phone: (319) 631 -8830 EMail: betsyswenn @gmail.com Comment: Andy McCoy explained each design in very good detail so everything is pretty much clear in our minds. I think the idea of raising Taft Speedway (alternative 9B) was a really good one- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 6/21/2012 Date Received: 5/31/2012 Comment ID: 57 Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Name: Novak, Tom Address 609 Manor Dr, Iowa City, 52246 Organization: Phone: (319) 351 -0879 Responder: EMail: thomas.a- novak @gmail.com Comment: Cost estimates need to be prioritized and disseminated PRIOR to next week's meeting. Aesthetics are an important consideration - please provide elevation views from both sides of the levee (city park and Idyllwildd /Parkview). Other impacts of the levee construction need to be addressed - loss of flood insurance eligibility for Idyllwild residents if the levee is built. - insurance will not cover water damage due to heavy rainfall causing surface water backups inside the levee if the pump fails - failure of the levee can cause catostrophical damage not covered by insurance. Maximum flood insurance coverage is $400 per year for high -risk property - it would take 200 years to equal the cost of a basic levee. The lost property value caused by a concrete wall may offset the presumed benefit of a levee- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 6/21/2012 Date Received: 6/5/2012 Comment ID: 59 Comment Source: Email Name: Novak, Tom Address 609 Manor Dr, Iowa City, 52246 Organization: Phone: (319) 351 -0879 Responder: EMail: thomas.a- novak @gmail.com Comment: To whom it may concern: I am writing regarding the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study. We are concerned that the follow -up meeting on June 6th is taking place prior to citizens having adequate time and information to promote a thoughtful discussion. A significant amount of information was missing from the initial meeting on May 30th that should have been available, and has still not been posted for public access, even though we were told that it would be. It appears that the meeting on May 30th was held to satisfy a required number of public hearings, but does not appear that the actual requirements were met that would be reasonable to expect for a project of this magnitude. We are especially concerned that there are no cost estimates associated with each of the plans. We also would like the do- nothing option to list the cost of 92 homes in Idyllwild getting flood insurance vs. the costs of the engineering projects. Since the area behind the levee will no longer be in the official floodplain does this prevent Idyllwild residents from protecting their property with flood insurance if a levee or floodwall is constructed? If the levee fails who is responsible for damages to structures that were supposed to be protected by the levee? Since insurance does not cover damage due to surface water, who is liable for damages if the pumps fail during a heavy rain? The flat map visuals provided do not provide adequate information about the effect of the plans on the area. With computers being what they are today and based on models seen for other projects, it is imperative that visually informative models be provided. What are the different plans going to look like? What will the view from City Park be? What will the view from Idyllwild be? We are bothered by the footnote to the Hydraulic Impacts table. Please summarize what the projects are, what the prospects are for them to be constructed, and what the potential impacts are for this study. Please explain how you chose the Intersection of Rocky Shore Drive and why should we accept this as adequate information. Why was there no one from HR Green at the meeting to answer questions about the hydrologic studies? During a 2008 flood event the impact of the proposed levee on water levels 500 feet upstream of no -name road cannot be "01? - there needs to be a clear report on how this calculation was made, and by whom. Could you please give further information about the inundation mapping upon which conclusions are based and illustrate the calculations upon which the maps are made. Also, what cumulative impacts and secondary impacts will be considered? For example, won't the protected area be a potential pond, depending upon the perfection of the (one) installed pump? What are the annual maintenance costs for each of the proposed levee/floodwall combinations? Which of the preliminary environmental impacts are being considered, given the levee on either side of the river? Since the US Army Corps of Engineers will have to issue permits that alter the floodplain and potentially the river bank (and possibly conduct their own engineering and environmental studies), why is there no one from the Corps involved at this point in time? We do not appreciate the way these meetings are being rushed through without adequate information or time between meetings to facilitate homework. This is a very busy time of year, considering that the academic year has ended for both the University and the public schools. While we understand that the meetings were set up to meet the schedule of both City personnel and the contractor, these meeting times are less convenient for those of us who are not familiar with the data and studies, and need time to process the information (especially since all your data is not yet available). I am concerned that your proposed meetings with city personnel might be in August. As any Iowa City citizen knows, August is not a time to make important city -wide decisions in Iowa City, due to numerous vacations scheduled during that time- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 6/5/2012 Comment ID: 60 Comment Source: Email Name: Cline, Sally Address 33 Trevose PI, Iowa City, 52245 Organization: Idyllwild Condo Owners Association Phone: (319) 331 -0270 Responder: EMail: clinesally @cs.com Comment: Perhaps you could supply an idea of what a "flood wall" could look,it may be helpful for a visual effect Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 6/21/2012 Date Received: 6/6/2012 Comment ID: 58 Comment Source: Email Name: Novak, Tom Address 609 Manor Dr, Iowa City, 52246 Organization: Phone: (319) 351 -0879 Responder: EMail: thomas.a- novak @gmail.com Comment: To whom it may concern: I received your information this morning as I check for any emails regarding my work. Receiving the information at the time you sent it presumes that people don't have evening plans or work during the day. I was at a business meeting for my practice last evening. My work does not allot me time to review emails during the work day. It will be a challenge for me to be at a meeting by 6:00 pm since my work day often extends to meet the needs of patients. I imagine that my situation is not unique and there was not enough time planned between meetings for you to give citizens time to thoughtfully process the information. The meetings require an opportunity for public input, but there has not been a reasonable amount of time given for the public to have access to the technical information and respond in a thoughtful manner. I request that an additional public meeting take place prior to the city council receiving recommendations, in order to allow the level of public involvement and input that is required. It would be appropriate for an email of importance to be signed by the persons responsible for this information- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 6/6/2012 Comment ID: 63 Comment Source: Website Name: Walker, Joey Address 882 Park PI, Iowa City, 52246 Organization: Phone: (319) 338 -8487 Responder: EMail: joeywalker @mchsi.com Comment: I think all the alternatives are a terrible waste of our money. A possible alternative is to add a road to the Peninsula Neighborhood through the landowner to the north which would cost a fraction of all the other alternatives. The levee and the raising of Foster Road are not worth the cost of protecting a few homes, and may actually push more water on to Parkview Terrace -- another existing neighborhood. The levee may not be able to protect Idyllwild anyway - -it is low and water may accumulate behind a proposed levee. Building an access to the Peninsula neighborhood is all that is fair and necessary- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 6/6/2012 Comment ID: 65 Name: Stoppelmoor, Ernie Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Address 2405 Towncrest Dr, Iowa City, 52240 Phone: (319) 351 -5556 EMail: erniestop @iowatelecom. net Comment: Regarding the storm water pumping station: Was sonsideration given to the possibility of storm sewers to divert the runoff from the north instead of relying on mechanical pumps which require maintenance? Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 6/21/2012 Date Received: 6/6/2012 Comment ID: 66 Name: Brinton, Edward Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Address 45 Howard Cir, Iowa City, 52245 Phone: (319) 338 -4600 EMail: ehbrinton @mediacombb. net Comment: 1) 1 liked the presentation and handout materials. 2) On pg 2 of the preliminary screening, it would be helpful if the column headings were added. 3) It would be helpful to see an analysis of the similarities and differences in alternatives 7, 8, and 9. Esp 7 and 8.4) It would be a really good idea to dive a name to "No Name Street 5) The slides showing the artists view of the cross sections of levee and flood wall were very good and helpful. 6) 1 believe the folks south of Taft Speedway are "out -of -luck" and that is okay with me. But Alt 7 does provide access to their properties even though they may be flooded. 7) 1 read $5.0 mil difference is the benefit to this neighborhood Alt 7 - Alt 2 $2B. Would there be an increase to this property value and property tax income from this neighborhood? Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 6/6/2012 Comment ID: 67 Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Name: Eastham, Charles Address 37 Colwyn Ct, Iowa City, 52245 Organization: Phone: (319) 541 -3972 Responder: EMail: eastham@mchsi.com Comment: Only 500 yr and 3 feet structures make sense. Please build one of these alternatives- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 6/6/2012 Comment ID: 68 Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Name: — Anonymous, — Anonymous Address , , Organization: Phone: Responder: EMail: Comment: Would like to see a cost benefit analysis rather than a list -what are the pros & cons. Idyllwild condo values will go down if everyone has to look at a levee or floodwall or some combination thereof. Add in maintenance costs. 1) What is the costs, including interest to each property owner in Iowa City of each alternative. 2) What is the cost, including maintenance divided by the # of condo units. In other words, how much per unit at Idyllwild? Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 6/6/2012 Comment ID: 69 Name: Geerdes, Gregg Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Address 890 Park PI, Iowa City, 52240 Phone: (319) 354 -2375 EMail: rmg9425 @mchsi.com Comment: 1) Idyllwild's risk is best managed by having them purchase flood insurance at their expense. Why should the public be required to pay. 2) Everyone who lives in the flood plain could see the river when they bought - there is no one to blame but the people who chose to live there. 3) Protect the parkl The aesthetics of a concrete wall would be horrendous. Why should the whole community suffer? 4) With the already high property taxes in Iowa City and the present and proposed bond issues (ie the jail) this is one project which can and should be eliminated- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 6/21/2012 1171r lUE79. - Plt i[yLyf��yN� .�ZTTiLaiiilo]Wif, Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Name: McKay, Bob Address 1438 Oaklawn Ave, Iowa City, 52245 Organization: Phone: (319) 351 -9209 Responder: EMail: gmckayic @gmail.com Comment: In the draft report to Iowa City please include in alternative "Do Nothing" and Alt 2 the cost to flood plain residents of acquiring financial mitigation from flood damage in the form of flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program. This financial mitigation cost, provided by floodplain residents, should be available for cost comparisions with the other alternatives in the report- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 6/6/2012 Comment ID: 71 Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Name: Boehlje, Susan Address 1729 Louis PI, Iowa City, 52245 Organization: Phone: (319) 331 -1452 Responder: EMail: sichance @iowadsl. net Comment: Thank you for the detailed analysis by the consultant. I think he /they did a good job. Two comments - 1) The consultant was honest enough to "confess" to the underground seepage issue due to gravity flow and soil conditions. Solution is to drill several pressure wells at Idyllwild - public improvements to public property? Plus the additional cost of the slurry to seal the underground flow. 2) Have you accessed the work of the UI Hydrolyic Dept headed by Prof Wichek concerning the special circumstances causing the 2008 floods. They have published a book "A Watershed Year - the Causes of the 2008 Iowa Floods Hope you can read this- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 6/6/2012 Comment ID: 72 Comment Source: Meeting Comment Form Name: Dillman, Drew Address 845 Normandy Dr, Iowa City, 52246 Organization: Phone: (319) 321 -0590 Responder: EMail: drewdillman @g mail -co m Comment: Raising Foster Road makes sense. Narrowing the flood plain by elevating a barrier along No Name Road seems a bad idea. Is there a plan to drop the fences around the ball diamonds downstream from Parkview Terrace immediately before a flood- Notes- Topic(s): Date Received: 6/7/2012 Comment ID: 64 Name: Crawford, Mike & Ginger Organization: Responder: Comment Source: Email Address 54 Pentrice Cir, Iowa City, 52245 Phone: (319) 512 -5510 EMail: mecrawford @aol.com Comment: Following last nights meeting I have a few comments. First, I do think the hydraulic impacts need to be highlighted and made more clear to all concerned. This needs to be understood by City Council. Further, I am wondering if you are taking the proposed construction along 1 -80 /Dubuque into consideration relative to runoff. I also have to comment on the alternative to just raist Foster Road. If that is what the Council decides, it will be an insult to the 92 families that live in Idyllwild. Finally, I do want to comment that Alternative 7 may be the most logical, certainly from a cost standpoint. Even though you will hear many arguments from those of us in Idyllwild to have 500 year protection, this alternative would at least send the message that the City is attempting to help us. Also, if we are ever again threatened with a 500 year flood, it will be much easier to sandbag on top of that levee- Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 6/21/2012 Date Received: 6/15/2012 Comment ID: 73 Comment Source: Website Name: Rosenquist, Marilyn Address 323 Mullin Ave, Iowa City, 52246 Organization: Manville Heights Neighborhood Association Phone: (319) 354 -3656 Responder: EMail: mdrosenquist @hotmail.com Comment: I attended the June 6th Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation public meeting. I would like to make the following comments after hearing the presentation and listening to the questions and answers about the project. 1. The Idyllwild condominiums were built after the then 1992 city council's override of the zoning commission's denial in the early 90's. The fault of the extensive flooding of the condos is squarely on the shoulders of the developer for not landfilling above the know 100 year flood zone before building. Please do not throw good money after bad in an attempt to remedy this mistake by destroying the Taft Speedway neighborhood, Parkview neighborhoods, City Park and the business and residents downstream. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen. 2. The levee design has a road on top for access to the Peninsula development. We no longer need that road because of the road that will be built at the Dubuque Street exit development. This road will give access to the Peninsula from the north side of Foster Road. The levee road would be closed to traffic in times of high water, so of no value during times of flooding. The Dubuque St Exit road will be north of foster road and north of the flood zone. 3. The total cost of this project will require input from city wide property taxes. The projection is that general obligation bonds will have to be issued to help pay for the levee. Eventually that money would have to be repaid by city wide property taxes. It is not fair that the benefit of this taxing will be for the 92 condo units only, not city wide. 4. The cost of the levee would be too much for Iowa City property tax payers during these times of financial hardship. We are losing revenue from the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that housing cooperatives can be classified as residential. And at the same time we are going to be asked to fund a new Justice Center costing $48 million dollar, pay at least $6 million for the landfill fire, eventually built a new high school and possibly fund the future medical offices in Towncrest for $950,000. 5. The $30,000 maintenance fee for the levee will be carried by city wide property taxes but benefit only the Idyllwild residents. 6. The storm water system discussed at the meeting to control future flash flooding will most likely get clogged with sand, which is the main component found in the soil sampling. If the city raises Foster Road the condo will then be situated in a bowl, between Foster and the levee. 7. 1 would like to see a cost analysis of how spending $8 -9 million plus on these 92 condo units would increase their property value enough to make it worth the money. As I see it, we are being asked to spend approximately $145, 000 per condo unit so they do not need to pay flood insurance. 8. The most importance project the City's Flood Mitigation should be raising Park Street Bridge. The backup of flood water at the bridge was the cause of much of the damage in the flood of 2008. 9. 1 am extremely uncomfortable with the fact that this project will be using federal and local taxes to favor one street over many others, particularly the people right across the street. It is unfair that the benefits will be felt only by the Idyllwild condominiums residents and that the negative impact will be felt by the neighbors across the street, across the river and down the river. 10. The only fair solution is for the Idyllwild residents to get flood insurance like other people who live along the river. Notes- Topic(s): Report date: 6/21/2012 August 21, 2012 Dear Iowa City Councilors and Staff: Thank you for directing Staff to apply for Grant money to be used for building permanent flood protection for Idyllwild, Parkview Church and Foster Road. I am writing this letter to ask you to please use it! It would seem unconscionable to return it after experiencing the most devastating flood in the history of our City. The HUD Community Development Block Grant of $8 million will cover all or most of the cost at this time, lessening the burden to the taxpayers of our community. The Taft Floodwall will eliminate the need to raise Foster Road, as the levee will protect this roadway as well. And perhaps most importantly, the HDR study has concluded that the Taft Floodwall will not create a detrimentally higher water level for our neighbors on Taft Speedway or Parkview Terrace. It has taken the Idyllwild community four years to overcome the destruction left in the flood's wake - and we are still not finished rebuilding. The flood caused the Idyllwild homeowners to spend over $8 million to rebuild - much of this was funded by taxpayer dollars from the state and federal government. And even though the Idyllwild community now has flood insurance, that too is a federal program whose shortfall is funded by our fax dollars. It would seem to be a better use of everyone's dollars to build a levee rather than rebuild again after every flood. For these reasons, I am asking for you to please support the Taft Floodwall. Sincerely, K(i(s# n Cayler & Bran on Menke 13 Camborne Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 33 Trevose Place Iowa City IA 52245 August 22, 2011 Member of City Council and Staff City of Iowa City 410 E Washington Street Iowa City Al 52240 Reference: Taft Speedway /No Name Road Flood Mitigation Dear City Council and Staff In Year 2010, Idyllwild Condominium Association commissioned MMS Consultants to prepare a Flood Emergency Plan for our 92 properties. The plan's conclusions: 1. It's impossible to protect Idyllwild against riverflooding at greater than a so- called 100 year flood using traditional temporary mitigation methods like sandbagging. There is simply not enough time to fill and place the necessary sandbags; it's estimated approximately 500,000 would be needed. 2. In addition to river flooding, Idyllwild is also exposed to a significant flood event from rainfall and runoff on 82 acres of ground to our north and west, the Peninsula neighborhood. Runoff from this watershed flows through the Idyllwild property and into our retention ponds. Unlike others in surrounding neighborhoods, we have some unique challenges which hinder our ability to mitigate future flooding: 1. Our building design /construction doesn't allow raising them out of harm's way like can be done with a single family home. 2. It's impossible to protect our properties from river flooding through temporary sandbagging. 3. Individual owners cannot be "bought out" after a flood because the development is incorporated as one large entity under the declaration which defines our Association. 4. We cannot redirect the increased volume of water flowing through our property from the Peninsula neighborhood and Foster Road storm drains without City assistance and approval. The conclusion is clear; some sort of flood mitigation for both river and rainfall flooding is required to protect the Idyllwild neighborhood. City Council supported and approved its construction twenty -some years ago and then approved and supported its reconstruction in Year 2008. The City has some sort of responsibility and obligation to support us once again. I ask you to support the Taft Street /No Name Road flood mitigation project. Sincerely, M s e Kurt Kimmerling August 24, 2012 Dear Iowa City Councilors and Staff: It has been 4 years since the Flood of 2008 left the community of Idyllwild, Taft Speedway, Parkview Terrace and the Parkview Church in ruins. After the flood, Idyllwild homeowners spent over $8 million to gut and rebuild every condo in the development. More funds were spent for temporary housing, to replace Idyllwild landscaping and repair roads and sidewalks. By late 2009, 35 homeowners out of 92 had sold their condo, filed for bankruptcy or had their mortgages foreclosed by the bank. It was a devastating event for our community, and not one we ever wish to repeat. Therefore I am writing today to ask the Council to take action now to protect this community. The HUD Community Development Block Grant of $8 million will cover all or most of the cost at this time, lessening the burden to the taxpayers of our community. The Taft Floodwall will eliminate the need to raise Foster Road, as the levee will protect this roadway as well. And perhaps most importantly, the HDR study has concluded that the Taft Floodwall will not create a detrimentally higher water level for our neighbors on Taft Speedway or Parkview Terrace. Idyllwild does not have many options for flood protection. Our development was not eligible for a FEMA buyout after the flood because as a condominium development, we are governed by a Declaration of Condominium which defines all 92 homes as an association and one large property, not individual units. Also, collectively, we did not meet the minimum damage requirements to be eligible for a buyout. We cannot raise our buildings higher due to the type of construction. We cannot protect ourselves with sandbags - with all the community resources that were available in 2008, we were unable to build a sandbag wall high enough and wide enough to protect our 92 homes. We put into place 350,000 sandbags, and we were out of time and still 150,000 sandbags short. We believe that a basic function of government is to protect the safety, welfare and well -being of its citizens. Idyllwild residents and owners pay their share of taxes and deserve this protection. Please support the floodwall. Sinceroly, David Russo I I Pentire Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 August 26, 2012 Dear Councilors and Staff: The reason for this letter is to encourage you to support building the Taft Floodwall to protect the 92 homes within the Idyllwild condominium complex that were ruined by the flood of 2008. It has taken the Idyllwild community four years to overcome the destruction left in the flood's wake - and we are still not finished rebuilding. The flood caused the Idyllwild homeowners to spend over $8 million to rebuild ($87,000 average per homeowner) — much of this was funded by taxpayer dollars from the state and federal government. And even though the Idyllwild community now has flood insurance, that too is a federal program whose shortfall is funded by our tax dollars. It would seem to be a better use of everyone's dollars to build a levee rather than rebuild again after every flood. We know Parkview Church DID have flood insurance; however, it paid only $500,000 out of the $900,000 worth of damage that was incurred. Insurance does not mean there is no expense to the victim. Additionally, flood insurance does not cover the stress and mental devastation from such a disaster. The Taft Floodwall will protect the church, Foster Road access, 92 families and real estate at Idyllwild that was valued at close to $30 million at the time of the 2008 flood. It will help stabilize property values and support increased property taxes in this area. And lastly, the HDR Study shows that there is no hydraulic encumbrance upon our neighbors as a result of a proposed floodwall, even to the height of a 500 year flood level plus 3 feet. For these reasons, I am asking for you to please support the Taft Floodwall. Sincerely, U\ Ivan N. Hall III 14 Idyllwild Court Iowa City, IA 52245 August 26, 2012 Dear City Council and Staff: I am an Idyllwild Condo owner in Iowa City. I am writing today to ask for your consideration of building a floodwall to protect the Idyllwild community and the neighboring Parkview Church. Though Idyllwild was built a foot or more above the floodplain, that did not protect it from the devastating Flood of 2008. With Coralville, and other communities to the north having adopted their own flood protection plans, this may well create more problems for those of us in the Idyllwild community. The Taft floodwall will help to provide us some needed protection, as taxpaying citizens, in the unconscionable event of a reoccurrence. The Idyllwild community cannot build a sandbag wall high, wide, or expansive enough to protect ourselves. And the homeowners association is not in a position to pay and provide labor for a temporary flood protection wall- One argument given against the floodwall is that it will need taxpayer dollars to finance it. It seems that a floodwall — even at an expense of $15 million (of which $8 million would be paid by a HUD grant) would be a good investment to protect the more than $25 million of real estate ( Idyllwild and the Parkview Church) that is left And if the grant money of $8 million is not used in our community, it will not be given back to taxpayers, but redistributed to some other community for disaster protection. It makes sense for our community to use this grant! The proposed levee will not only protect the 92 homes in Idyllwild, but also protect against Foster Road again being flooded, which is presently the only access to the Peninsula community. The Parkview Church property will also gain protection from a floodwall. For these reasons, we support the Taft Floodwall and we urge you to support it as well. Sincerely, Kay & Tracy Hansen 15 Pentire Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 August 28, 2012 Dear Iowa City Councilors and Staff. The Flood of 2008 was a devastating event for the Idyllwild community, and not one we ever wish to repeat. There is an opportunity now to mitigate this type of event in the future and we are asking that you please exercise it. Please vote yes for the Taft flood protection. The HUD Community Development Block Grant of $8 million will cover all or most of the cost at this time, lessening the burden to the taxpayers of our community. The Taft Floodwall will eliminate the need to raise Foster Road, as the levee will protect this roadway as well. And perhaps most importantly, the HDR study has concluded that the Taft Floodwall will not create a detrimentally higher water level for our neighbors on Taft Speedway or Parkview Terrace. Idyllwild does not have many options for flood protection. Our development was not eligible for a FEMA buyout after the flood because as a condominium development, we are governed by a Declaration of Condominium that defines all 92 homes as an association and one large property, not individual units. Also, collectively, we did not meet the minimum damage requirements to be eligible for a buyout. We cannot raise our buildings higher due to the type of construction. We cannot protect ourselves with sandbags - with all the community resources that were available in 2008, we were unable to build a sandbag wall high enough and wide enough to protect our 92 homes. We put into place 350,000 sandbags, and we were out of time and still 150,000 sandbags short. We need flood protection, and it is at your fingertips. Please support the Taft Floodwall. Sincerely, Earlene & Slaymaker 145 Pentire Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 August 28, 2012 Dear Iowa City Council and Staff: I am writing you today to ask that you vote in favor of building the Taft floodwall to help protect us - and the other 91 homes in the Idyllwild condominium complex — from the type of financial, physical, and mental devastation caused by the flood of 2008. No one could have predicted the 2008 flood would be so extreme, and flood mitigation structures up and down the river, as well as more frequent intense storms have changed the severity and number of floods in the Midwest. The City Council has the opportunity and the funding - at this moment- to choose to protect these homes without raising the flood levels for our neighbors. It would be remiss to do nothing and let the flood waters flow unabated next time around. Though the floodwall is important for Idyllwild, it is also an important element for the protection of the Parkview Church, which was also devastated by the Flood of 2008. And while one argument against the floodwall is that we should all just get flood insurance, Parkview Church DID have flood insurance, however, it paid only $500,000 out of the $900,000 worth of damage that was incurred_ Insurance does not mean there is no expense to the victim. Additionally, flood insurance does not cover the stress and mental devastation from such a disaster. Please support a Floodwall to protect our community. Sincerely, 'r Mishelle Paullus 37 Trevose Place Iowa City, IA 52245 August 29, 2012 Dear Council and Staff: The purpose of my letter is to ask for your support in building the Taft Floodwall to protect the 92 homes and 23 buildings in the Idyllwild condominium complex devastated by the flood of 2008. As you are aware, Idyllwild was built with approval by the City, and was originally built a foot or more above the floodplain, although the landscape has changed over time to put some areas in the floodplain. Flood protection plans put into place in Coralville and other communities to our north may have an adverse effect on the flooding of Idyllwild. It has taken the Idyllwild community four years to overcome the destruction left in the flood's wake - and we are still not finished. It was a devastating event that created financial ruin for some, stress and anxiety for all, and it cost us $8 million to rebuild. No one could possibly wish for us to go through this again. It is our view that a basic function of government is to protect the safety, welfare and well -being of its citizens. Idyllwild residents and owners pay their share of taxes and deserve this protection. Sincerely, i Jean Davidson 42 Camborne Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 August 29, 2012 Dear City Council and Staff: I am writing you today to ask that you vote in favor of building the Taft floodwall to help protect us - and the other 91 homes in the ldyllwild condominium complex - from the type of financial, physical, and mental devastation caused by the flood of 2008 Pre -flood, real estate was valued at close to $30 million in Idyllwild, and the Taft Floodwall should help stabilize property values and support increased property taxes. We know there is concern over floodwall appearance. However, one need only to walk the streets of Iowa City to see the walls that have been built for many reasons, with many of them being interesting and visually appealing. A flood wall with a brick or stone facade could be an interesting backdrop to new landscaping and would certainly look better than a flooded church and 92 flooded condos! The City Council has the opportunity and funding - at this moment- to choose to protect these homes without raising the flood levels for our neighbors. It would be remiss to do nothing and let the flood waters flow unabated next time around. Please support the creation of the Taft Floodwall. Sincerely, Ed Warth 48 Camborne Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 August 31, 2012 Dear Iowa City Councilors and Staff: I am writing this letter to ask for your support of building the Taft Floodwall to protect the 92 homes in the Idyllwild condominium complex and the Parkview Church, all of which were devastated by the flood of 2008. We have heard many reasons against the floodwall or levee in the past year. One argument against the floodwall is the use of taxpayer dollars to finance it. Taxpayers have already financed $21,000,000 to buy out properties on the river that includes many homes along Taft and Parkview Terrace. It seems that a floodwall — even at an expense of $15,000,000 (of which $8_ million would be paid by _a HUD grant) would be a good investment to protect the more than $25,000,000 of real estate ( Idyllwild and the Parkview Church) that is left. And if the grant money of $8,000,000 is not used in our community, it will not be given back to taxpayers, but redistributed to some other community for disaster protection. It makes sense for our community to use the grant we were given. Another argument against the floodwall is that we should all just get flood insurance. Parkview Church DID have flood insurance in 2008, however, it paid only $500,000 out of the $900,000 worth of damage that was incurred. Insurance does not mean there is no expense to the victim. Additionally, flood insurance does not cover the stress and mental devastation from such a disaster. A third argument is that a floodwall will look awful. However, one needs only to walk the streets of Iowa City to see the various walls that have been built for different reasons, with many of them being interesting and visually appealing. A floodwall with a brick or stone facade could be an interesting backdrop to new landscaping. The Taft Floodwall will protect 92 families and real estate that was valued at close to $30 million at the time of the 2008 flood. It will protect Foster Road and the Parkview Church. It will help stabilize property values and support increased property taxes. And lastly, the HDR Study shows that there is no hydraulic encumbrance upon our neighbors as a result of a proposed floodwall, even to the height of a 500 year flood level plus 3 feet. For these reasons, I am asking for you to please support the Taft Floodwall. Sincerely, NiJA` Willis & Beverly'Johansen 23 Camborne Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 August 27, 2012 Dear Council and Staff: I am writing you today to ask that you vote in favor of building the Taft floodwalI to help protect us - and the other 91 homes in the Idyllwild condominium complex — from the type of financial, physical, and mental devastation caused by the flood of 2008. Though it was severely flooded, the Idyllwild condominium complex was built with Council approval a foot or more above the floodplain. No one could have predicted the 2008 flood would be so extreme, and flood mitigation structures up and down the river, as well as more frequent intense storms have changed the severity of floods in the Midwest. The City Council has the opportunity and the funding - at this moment - to choose to protect these homes without raising the flood levels for our neighbors. It would be remiss to do nothing and let the flood waters flow unabated next time around. One argument against the floodwall is that it will need taxpayer dollars to finance it. Taxpayers have already financed $21,000,000 to buy out properties on the liver which includes many homes along Taft and Parkview Terrace. It seems that a floodwall — even at an expense of $15,000,000 (of which $8 million would be paid by a HUD grant) would be a good investment to protect the more than $25,000,000 of real estate ( Idyllwild and the Parkview Church) that is left. And if the grant money of $8,000,000 is not used in our community, it will not be given back to taxpayers, but redistributed to some other community for disaster protection. It makes sense for our community to use the grant we were given. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request David and Bethany Swenning 44 Pentire Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 August 28, 2012 Dear City Council and Staff: I am writing you today to ask that you vote in favor of building the Taft floodwall to help protect us - and the other 91 homes in the Idyllwild condominium complex — from the type of financial, physical, and mental devastation caused by the flood of 2008 Pre - flood, real estate was valued at close to $30 million in Idyllwild, and the Taft Floodwall should help stabilize property values and support increased property taxes. We know there is concern over floodwall appearance. However, one need only to walk the streets of Iowa City to see the walls that have been built for many reasons, with many of them being interesting and visually appealing. A flood wall with a brick or stone facade could be an interesting backdrop to new landscaping and would certainly look better than a flooded church and 92 flooded condos! The City Council has the opportunity and funding - at this moment- to choose to protect these homes without raising the flood levels for our neighbors. It would be remiss to do nothing and let the flood waters flow unabated next time around. Please support the creation of the Taft Floodwall. Sincerely, i i Gordon & Tammi Craft 133 Pentire Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 August 29, 2012 Dear City Councilors and Staff: I am an owner of a condo at Idyllwild and am writing this letter to ask for your support of building the Taft Floodwall to protect the 92 homes in the Idyllwild condominium complex. I am concerned about the incidence of flooding in our neighborhood, and the increasing number of floods in the Midwest generally. A study released by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization have concluded that the storms which led to the Floods of 2008 in Iowa are part of a growing climate trend and likely to recur with growing frequency. It only makes sense to protect the areas of vulnerability. Pre - flood, real estate was valued at close to $30 million in Idyllwild, and a Floodwall should help stabilize property values and support increased property taxes. We know there is concern over floodwall appearance. However, one needs only to walk the streets of Iowa City to see the walls that have been built for many reasons, with many of them being interesting and visually appealing. A flood wall with a brick or stone facade could be an interesting backdrop to new landscaping. It is a matter of fact that flooding is increasing in the Midwest. The City of Iowa City should be proactive and ward off the next disaster while the resources (HUD grant) are available. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request Sincerely, 7, Barb & Joe Tobin 43 Trevose Place Iowa City, IA 52245 August 29, 2012 Dear Iowa City Council and Staff: I am a homeowner in the community of Idyllwild. The reason for this letter is to encourage you to support building the Taft Floodwall to protect the 92 homes within the Idyllwild condominium complex that were ruined by the flood of 2008. As we know you are aware, Idyllwild was built with City approval a foot or more above the flood plain, but the landscape has changed over time to put some areas in the flood plain. And flood protection plans put into place in Coralville and other communities to our north may have an adverse effect on flooding us once again. Under the best of circumstances, Idyllwild cannot possibly build a sandbag wall high enough, wide enough, or expansive enough to protect the 23 buildings in the development. Further, the Idyllwild HOA cannot fund a temporary flood protection wall due to its cost and the intensive labor required to put it in place in the event of a flood. The Taft Floodwall will protect 92 families and real estate that was valued at close to $30 million at the time of the 2008 flood. It will help stabilize property values and support increased property taxes. And lastly, the HDR Study shows that there is no hydraulic encumbrance upon our neighbors as a result of a proposed floodwall, even to the height of a 500 year flood level plus 3 feet. We believe that a basic function of government is to protect the safety, welfare and health of its citizens. Idyllwild residents and owners pay their share of taxes, and look forward to paying more through increased property valuations. Please provide us that protection. Sincerely, Karlen & Robert Fellows 135 Pentire Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 August 31, 2012 Dear Iowa City Councilors and Staff. We are writing as concerned citizens who own 14 condos at Idyllwild. We request that the Council take action now to protect this community. The HUD Community Development Block Grant of $8 million will cover all or most of the cost at this time, lessening the burden to the taxpayers of our community. The Taft Floodwall will eliminate the need to raise Foster Road, as the levee will protect this roadway as well. And perhaps most importantly, the HDR study has concluded that the Taft Floodwall will not create a detrimentally higher water level for our neighbors on Taft Speedway or Parkview Terrace. Idyllwild does not have many options for flood protection. Our development was not eligible for a FEMA buyout after the flood because as a condominium development, we are governed by a Declaration of Condominium which defines all 92 homes as an association and one large property, not individual units. Also, collectively, we did not meet the minimum damage requirements to be eligible for a buyout. We cannot raise our buildings higher due to the type of construction. We cannot protect ourselves with sandbags - with all the community resources that were available in 2008, we were unable to build a sandbag wall high enough and wide enough to protect the 92 homes at Idyllwild. With all the resources that were brought to bear, we put into place 350,000 sandbags, until we were out of time and still 150,000 sandbags short. We believe that a basic function of government is to protect the safety, welfare and well -being of its citizens. Idyllwild residents and owners pay their share of taxes and deserve this protection. We want and need flood protection, please spend the grant money in Iowa City and don't send it back to be redistributed to another community. Sincere] , Tom Bockenstedt & Celeste Holloway 3555 Dolphin Drive SE Iowa City, IA 52240 Owners of 21 Pentire Circle 131 Pentire Circle 141 Pentire Circle 147 Pentire Circle 12 Colwyn Court 14 Colwyn Court 18 Colwyn Court 41 Colwyn Court 12 Trevose Place 18 Trevose Place 47 Trevose Place 21 Newlyn Circle 23 Newlyn Circle 25 Newlyn Circle September 1, 2012 Dear Iowa City Councilors and Staff: I am writing you today to ask that you vote in favor of building the Taft floodwall to help protect us - and the other 91 homes in the Idyllwild condominium complex —from the type of financial, physical, and mental devastation caused by the flood of 2008 With all the community resources that were available in 2008, we were unable to build a sandbag wall high enough and wide enough to protect our 92 homes — that would have required 500,000 sandbags! MMS concluded in the Flood Emergency Response Plan which they developed for Idyllwild, that permanent flood protection would be the most effective means to protect this area from another flood like the one we experienced in 2008. Pre - flood, real estate was valued at close to $30 million in Idyllwild, and the Taft Floodwall should help stabilize property values and support increased property taxes. We know there is concern over floodwall appearance. However, one needs only to walk the streets of Iowa City to see the many walls that have been built for many reasons, with many of them being interesting and visually appealing. A flood wall with a brick or stone facade could be an interesting backdrop to new landscaping. It is our view that a basic function of government is to protect the safety, welfare and well -being of its citizens. Idyllwild residents and owners pay their share of taxes and deserve this protection. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. Sincerely, Amy Becker 52 Pentire Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 September 05, 2012 Dear City Council and Staff The reason for this letter is to ask you to support the Taft Floodwall to protect the 92 homes within the Idyllwild condominium complex that were mined by the flood of 2008. We are owners of a condo in the Idyllwild community of Iowa City and have grave concerns about landscape changes over time that have put some areas of Idyllwild in the flood plain. And flood protection plans put into place in Coralville and other communities to our north may have an adverse effect on flooding us once again. Under the best of circumstances, Idyllwild cannot possibly build a sandbag wall high enough, wide enough, or expansive enough to protect the 23 buildings in the development. Further, the Idyllwild HOA cannot fund a temporary flood protection wall due to its cost and the intensive labor required to put it in place in the event of a flood. The Taft Floodwall will protect 92 families and real estate that was valued at close to $30 million at the time of the 2008 flood, in addition to the Parkview Church and their property. It will help stabilize property values and support increased property taxes. And lastly, the HDR Study shows that there is no hydraulic encumbrance upon our neighbors as a result of a proposed floodwall, even to the height of a 500 year flood level plus 3 feet. We believe that a basic function of government is to protect the safety, welfare and health of its citizens. Idyllwild residents and owners pay their share of taxes, and look forward to paying more through increased property valuations. Please support us in this quest. Sincerely, Burghard Schoenfeld 126 Pentire Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 September 17, 2012 Dear City Council and Staff. The reason for this letter is to ask you to support the Taft Floodwall to protect the 92 homes within the Idyllwild condominium complex that were ruined by the flood of 2008. We are owners of a condo in the Idyllwild community of Iowa City and have grave concerns about landscape changes over time that have put some areas of Idyllwild in the flood plain. And flood protection plans put into place in Coralville and other communities to our north may have an adverse effect on flooding us once again. Under the best of circumstances, Idyllwild cannot possibly build a sandbag wall high enough, wide enough, or expansive enough to protect the 23 buildings in the development. Further, the Idyllwild HOA cannot fund a temporary flood protection wall due to its cost and the intensive labor required to put it in place in the event of a flood. The Taft Floodwall will protect 92 families and real estate that was valued at close to $30 million at the time of the 2008 flood, in addition to the Parkview Church and their property. It will help stabilize property values and support increased property taxes. And lastly, the HDR Study shows that there is no hydraulic encumbrance upon our neighbors as a result of a proposed floodwall, even to the height of a 500 year flood level plus 3 feet. We believe that a basic function of government is to protect the safety, welfare and health of its citizens. Idyllwild residents and owners pay their share of taxes, and look forward to paying more through increased property valuations. Please support us in this quest. Sincerely, Gary Hu es 34 Camborne Circle Iowa City, IA 52245 In The Matter Of: V. HDR Meetings June 6, 2012 Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone (402)556 -5000 Fax (402)556 -2037 Original File 06 -06 -12 HDR Public Meeting.txt Min- U- Script0 with Word Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY Public Meeting Parkview Church Iowa City, Iowa June 6, 2012 Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had, to -wit:) AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Joy Gasher McKusick. I've been a part of the floodplain in Iowa City since 1947 when my family built a home off of Park Road. And personally I have owned a home on Normandy Drive since 1969, so I have been a part of the floodplain in more ways than one because my spouse, Marshall McKusick, was the state's first archaeologist, and I think if anyone had asked they would have said that our forefathers had better sense than to do that. But anyway, my own comment is -- it really isn't a question, it's simply my own opinion. And that is that the floodplain which serves the community is -- the best plan that you put forward which would serve the entire community to my way of thinking would be the raising of Foster Road. That would serve the community very well. The rest of it, I'm sorry, but I feel like you're still recreating a big, big swimming pool. But anyway, that's, again, personal opinion. But the rest of the plan simply ignores the risks that those of us on both sides of the river who have chosen our own homesites and the Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 risks that go with it, and there is no positive result for any of us or through Park Road or any of the other alternatives. Thank you. MR. ENGEL: Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Shelly Easel (sp), and I live at 370 Port (inaudible). I just have a question, can you tell me if any of the 100 -foot flood mitigation alternatives would have decreased in 4 days of water that we had in our home during the 2008 flood? MR. ENGEL: The 2008 event I believe was 655 elevation, around there. The 100 -year alternative that is shown up year at elevation 654. The 2008 event was in excess or closer to a 500 -year event. The 100 -year alternatives would not provide mitigation for that, no. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening. My name is Greg Burdis. I live at 890 Park Place which you have mislabeled as Parkview Terrace. Question that I have for you is why did you choose to model your hydraulics based upon the intersection of Park Road and Rocky Shore at 500 feet upstream of Normandy Road? What are the hydraulic impacts where people live -- specifically Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what's the hydraulic impact on the south side residence of Taft Speedway for any one of those alternatives, why was that calculation not made, likewise, where is the calculation of the hydraulic impact on Parkview Terrace? That's where the people are, and that's been a primary concern of many of us from the very beginning. The other point that I'd like to address, the whole issue of esthetics. You've not identified that as one of the impacts, but as a community do we really want a 16 -foot tall concrete wall stuck along our river? We're in the process of planning for a county jail at the same time as we're doing this. I submit that you've got the wrong objective for this particular plan. So those are my observations and questions. Thank you. MR. ENGEL: The first question was why do we need to go over those two locations? Why weren't they chosen? I got the information, that shows were the greatest impacts -- where the greatest impacts in water surface elevation were immediately upstream of the proposed alternative. So I wanted to highlight the maximum, and I chose Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those two points for the handout in the report that will have the entire -- that have all those lines, all those sections all the way through. I've got that information that HDR provided and a summary showing what the maximum impacts were. As far as impacts just south from a hydraulic standpoint, when you look at flows approaching the bridge or flows that are converging in water surface profile. I think for that area, just for the Taft Speedway residents, just south of Taft, it's maybe on 100th of a foot decrease in water surface elevation because of that drawdown loss an increase. The second question was esthetics, yes, that will be in the report. They're certainly are esthetics in both Taft Speedway, there's esthetics impacts to Idyllwild residents. I spoke to a woman last Thursday that brought up are there impacts -- esthetic impacts from City Park looking across the river and what are those, so yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Wally Taylor. I'm an attorney from Cedar Rapids representing the folks south of Taft Speedway. I went back and looked at the request for qualification they call it for this project, winning Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bid or losing. And the objective was to determine the feasibility of constructing a levy by elevating Taft Speedway and Normandy Road. Special attention came to the impact it would have on the residents living south of Taft Speedway. Items to be considered are property values, accessibility, insurance coverage, relocation of utilities, funding of scheduling. In addition other alternatives should be considered and researched based on the specific impacts each alternative would have on Taft Speedway and Idyllwild residents. Out of all these alternatives, it looks like the focus of every one of them is to protect the areas north of Taft Speedway, but the south of Taft Speedway are just collateral damage. There's been no indication that there's been any kind of design or analysis or any consideration for what's going to happen to them when the water is stopped by this levy or flood wall. It all goes right back on to the folks south of Taft Speedway. So I don't see anything in that regard. Maybe the draft report will have more on that, but we don't have a report to look at yet. So when I came here tonight, I was going to ask where in the heck is the report, but you've explained that Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 already, we don't have one yet. I'm assuming that that draft report at the end of the month will be on the website. MR. ENGEL: Absolutely. And I think to answer your question, if you look at the impact side of things certainly accounted for the majority of those that you spoke about, access, hydraulic impacts, utility impacts, ingress and egress for those residents, absolutely. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can the public comment on the draft report? MR. ENGEL: Absolutely. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Marilyn Rosenquist, 323 Mullin Avenue. I would like to know where the money would come from besides the federal money, is it going to be state property tax, city -wide property tax to pay for this? MR. REICHART: Besides the a little over $8 million we have, I guess, available for this project, CGG funding. We have a little over $11 million total in the budget, and that includes general obligations, bonds for the initial fiscal years and stuff, and that's included in that. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, as we're looking at the county jail, the fire at the Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 landfill, this is something that you want to use city -wide property tax for? It just seems inappropriate at this time. I also want to say I'm very uncomfortable with one neighborhood being pitted against a second neighborhood with property tax. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Douglas Jones, 816 Park Road. I'm wondering about one alternative that you didn't describe, and that is every single alternative had the same basic math. All these point to all the way to Dubuque Street and then went back diagonal along the creek, that seems to be going out of your way. And it strikes me that that's protecting, I think, a baseball diamond behind this church, and somehow the value of that baseball diamond strikes me as being a little bit low. Why not just stop the projects right beyond this building and go straight up to the corner? That would cut off a great big chunk of a 16 -foot high levy, and it would shorten the total length of the project by several hundred yards. I suspect that would save money. With that said, I can't see how we justify spending that kind of money. I can see spending Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 ro 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $3 million to raise Foster, but I can't see spending $10 million to build this enormous project. So I have to agree with my former next -door neighbors that Alternative 2B seems to be -- Alternative 2B seems to be the right one. MR. ENGEL: Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Mark Phelps, 115 Taft Speedway. Could you go back to your drawing, your elevation drawing, the 500 -year where it showed the flood wall? I want some clarification. Now, that's 100 -year condition, none of these alternatives are at the 500 -year condition as to where your flood wall is, so are we to assume that flood wall is going to be in your drawing there as depicted 3 feet additional if it's a 500 -year plus 3 feet? MR. ENGEL: That's a great question. This is the -- it's the 500 -year flood wall condition, it should be 500 -year plus 3 feet. That's the elevation that's reflected in the 500 -year. That's elevation 660, and what we did is, again, we have a survey, we had some spot elevation applied to our data, and we accepted the house foundation as 651 or 652. We pulled off the spot Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 M1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 elevation at the sight of Taft Speedway. I think it was 649 at that location, so that's 11 -foot high wall. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My other question is the road on Taft Speedway, a no name road, are we to assume that you're building that to the standard of what a current development would be inside of Iowa City? MR. ENGEL: This is a two -lane rural I understand that there's a urban /rural -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Iowa City says city limits doesn't have any rural codes, so current code is for 28 feet. There's been an exception made for the peninsula at 25. We're at 22. So the way you have this drawing here, I mean, you're going to have a 22 -foot silicone road with no sidewalks for pedestrian traffic, and a 16 -foot plus wall on the side of it. Isn't that only asking for a chance of somebody getting severely hurt with a car since this is a highly traveled road with joggers, cyclists coming from Dodge Park to City Park. So we haven't had any consideration for a trail or sidewalk in any of these drawings? MR. ENGEL: It's not incorporated. Just replaced what was existing. You're right, if Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 that's a city code, there would need to be some sort of variance. Is there a sidewalk there now? AUDIENCE MEMBER: No. MR. ENGEL: Do people walk along there now? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, but if we're a developer and we want to go and build a development, we have to be at 28 feet so how are we getting by at 22 feet? MR. ENGEL: Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. I'm John McAntee, we live on Park Place, and I have an office on Foster Road. I know that several of those plans you described will protect our future in Idyllwild. This isn't a 5 -year flood, but I'm not sure what would happen if there is an even higher flood that you have description without tier flood or what we had in 2008? It seems not a question of if but when we're going to get another flood since we had this 2008, and I think the bigger picture in this should be what can we do to better manage a water runoff in the whole region, you know, this closed area is important. Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 I got to attend a really nice one workshop in Coralville in September 2009, and there were presentations by William Peterson, Ryan Peterson, and others, who with university -- I mean, state of Iowa, part of that, and they spoke about how we can improve water -- rain water management in our region in order to defend most of the problems that result from unwanted water runoff and flooding. I wanted to make the point that the best solutions with unwanted water runoff and flooding, they understood measures of sustainable water management on farms and cities with increased infiltration and soil permeability such as bias well, rain gardens, permeable pavings, and better agricultural practices. These affected measures would require several cooperation between equal government agencies throughout the city, throughout the basin, however, this sustainable rain water management solution will be far more cost effective and probably cheaper than what is being done now which is mainly more into temporary mandate fixes of flood damages being done now since the 2008 flooding. I think that we should be planning and implementing a better and more cost effective sustainable Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 measurements to prevent damage for the next major flood. Thank you very much. MR. ENGEL: Thank you. To answer your question in an event -- where there is an event out there that will occur that we'll overcome. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My question was not if but when. MR. ENGEL: Right. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Cathy Wilcox, and I live on Taft Speedway Street. And I have a question about the timeline, so this might not be something that consultants can answer but perhaps Jason from the city. If I recall correctly, you stated that this could go to city council in August, and I would like to express my concern that I think the last time around that this came up, it will almost be a year, and again it was in August, and August is not a very good time, clearly everybody in Iowa city with the university out, people on vacations, and so I would recommend that they look at September. Thank you. MR. ENGEL: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Do we have any new comments? Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Sally Cline, and I live in Idyllwild. One of the things I do want to point out that Parkview Terrace is where the people are, there's 92 people in Idyllwild, 92 households. MS. BAKER: Try talking up here to Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: And we're there, and we're back after the floods. And we in Idyllwild are impacted three different ways. One's from the north coming down from those 240 acres, and if they do develop that trailer park up there, there's going to be even more concrete for the water to come down. We're also impacted from Foster Road coming from the west to the east into our oil basin, and then again we're impacted from the river. I just don't think the building and raising Foster Road is reasonable. It certainly gets access to the community up above Foster Road, but it certainly is going to do nothing for any of us that are trapped behind that Taft Speedway as well as Idyllwild. So we really do encourage all of us looking at other alternatives. I do have a question for you, I'm confused, and I confuse easily, but I need to know Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 To me they're the same, except for the money difference. 15 MR. ENGEL: Right. The difference is the combination of the levy on either side where we got away from the spacing restraints and just a flood wall along the back or north side of Taft Speedway. There was no rebuilding of Taft or impacts on that alternative. What we were trying accomplish for every -- we're talking about a wall of that height, free - standing walls, a standing structural measure, so we looked at what could we raise Taft Speedway and elevate it so that the wall -- so with this alternative includes, again, a levy over here, you would raise Taft Speedway within the right -of -way in the maximum raised about 3 and a half feet can be accomplished within a right -of -way. So your wall height instead of being -- I can't read those, instead of the wall height being 13 feet here, maybe it's 10 feet now, is at the same elevation to accomplish 3 feet of girth and then 10 feet with wall as opposed to the previous one, Wall 13B was a concrete wall and what we found was we thought the reduction of the wall heighth would Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 be a reduction of cost, it would include that this alternative, we start raising the elevation of Taft, removing and replacing the pavement, there's sanitary sewers underneath there, they have low impact on. So that's what the difference between the two alternatives is. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. MR. ENGEL: Does that make sense? AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, it doesn't. I'm sorry. Because when you look at this, they're both raised 3 feet, so what it is the 3 feet between 9A and 9B? MR. ENGEL: That is the height, that's the parenthesis, the height, 100 year plus 3 feet, the 100 year plus 3 feet, that's the top. AUDIENCE MEMBER: That I understand, then B is raising Taft Speedway that 3 feet then bringing -- got it. thank you. MR. ENGEL: I apologize for the confusion. Great question. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Drew Gillman, 845 Normandy Drive. And I had a couple of unrelated things, one of them is that seems in general you can give some idea, you can't tell exactly, but at least get some idea where the narrow places of the river Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 are going to be. It's pretty simple that if you have a cross section of the valley and how fast the water's flowing, you can pretty well calculate the whole thing now. It's when you make that corner there, it's -- you can draw a straight line across there on the map, and that's a pretty narrow place in the river compared to other places. That -- to me it would make a lot more sense for that -- for the first comment was made, I think raising Foster Road would be better because you eliminate that narrowing of the valley there, while the drain isn't very effective now in that entire development, it is effective into and across that corner right there. One thing that you didn't discuss, and I assume there must be some very good reason for not doing that. It is an obvious way to eliminate that narrow place there would be to build across on the other side of the pond, put the wall right against the housing development that's there which would then allow a couple of big benefits: One of them most of the residents who are living right along the river on the south side of that wouldn't be as impacted if you put the wall right against the housing development. Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right -- MR. ENGEL: You're talking about AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, something like that, just cut that off, then you don't have -- a lot of the flow would be much better through that corner. And it would also eliminate a lot of the little things where you had to do with getting down to the houses, and it would change the impact -- the people that will were living in that would be more a little more impacted because the wall would be pushing upon, but everybody else would have a beneficial impact for that I assume. I just wanted to ask you about that. Another question that relates to that is the second factor that I mentioned determines the height of it, how high it's going to be is how fast the water is flowing in there, and directly across that narrow place we created there are all the ball diamonds which have fences sticking up which during the flood collect paper and other things against those and slow the flow of the water through there, and I was wondering is there anybody that's talking about some way of if there's going to be a flood, if not taking those fences down, to allow the water to flow through more quickly through that narrow point Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 which would have a strong beneficial effect for those of us. MR. ENGEL: That's a good comment. Did those fences fail in 108? AUDIENCE MEMBER: I don't think so. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Janet Linn, Idyllwild. I have a question for Jason about the state dollars, are the CGG dollars fungible, or are they dedicated to flood mitigation? MR. REICHART: In relation to this project, the original application was for flood mitigation in the area, so they would have to be for flood mitigation project. Am I understanding your question correctly? AUDIENCE MEMBER: If we don't use them for flood mitigation, they go back to the state? MR. REICHART: That's right. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Joel Wilcox. I live on Taft Speedway. I've got a question and follow -up if I may. I think probably the least controversial of the alternatives is the raising Foster Road. Most people would feel like, gosh, we got that out Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 of this whole process, that would be a good thing because that was already in the works before, I think, the money was approved for it. And we did get Mr. Bulldon (sp) pay for that, that would be good for the city I think. I think that would be, but I don't know -- I'm curious as to how that got into what was studied at all because my understanding was that this study was requested specifically to look at the impact of those alternatives on the river front neighborhoods. That's my question is how did this get in the study? MR. ENGEL: The one -- when we were doing one to kind of build the other alternative, then we said, well, what is the providing access only, and then what is the access plus flood mitigation benefit? It's kind of a build, showing the incremental costs associated with it. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, do nothing what we do for my neighborhood, leave it as it is, and we would know, but Foster Road does nothing for my neighborhood to improve my neighborhood. It doesn't do really anything for Parkview Terrace so including it seems to be just a -- sort of meandering off of the topic to some degree. MR. REICHART: I think we use it as a Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 reference point as well because I believe if we were to raise Foster, we wouldn't be available for the CGG funding so, therefore, that would be fully funded by the city. We could then use that as somewhat of a comparison between alternatives as, you know, what the city would pay for, what the grant would cover, you know. So it's not necessarily, you know -- it still provides access, but there's no flood mitigation benefits provided by it, but that's still -- you can still use that as a cost reference. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm not against it. I just wondered how it was relevant. The other question that I wanted to ask is when I go out and look on the internet and read about -- just Google the phrase no adverse impact, I get a lot of sites that come back and tell me about -- it's advisable for the municipalities not to create adverse impact in places like floodplains to improve the situation, and you make it worse for somebody else that can become liable for damages. Now, I've heard you talk in terms of if we do such and such at some later time, this project down river, we may in a sense overall improve the situation on the stream by something like half a Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 foot or tenth of a foot, but that's all hypothetical waiting to happen somewhere down -- somewhere later in time. And I'm not even sure whether -- when that becomes a status quo, and I'm still in an adverse way compared to my neighbors because of something that the city did. I'm not certain that the city hasn't been set up to be liable for it. Now, is this part of any of the study that you've done at all in any way? MR. ENGEL: So what I understand your question to be is what under existing impacts we could add, what's out there right now? AUDIENCE MEMBER: What are the legal obligations to the city and citizens of Iowa City, do any of those projects or any of these alternatives as a result? Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Mary Catherine Wallace at 45 Colen (sp) in Idyllwild. And my first question is what is the 100 -year flood level now? How has it changed -- we bought it in 2005, and when we bought in Idyllwild, we were told you don't need flood insurance, you can't buy flood insurance and after the 2008 flood, we were informed that the 100 -year flood level included some of Idyllwild. And so my Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 question -- first question is the 100 -year flood level now and how has it changed? MR. REICHART: You're correct in saying your comment when Idyllwild was constructed, it met the National Flood Development guidelines, and so the structures were built to 1 foot above the 100 -year flood elevation at that time. I believe it was in 2007 they made a revision. FEMA came through and remapped the floodplains. When they did that, they found that three of the structures were now inside the 100 -year floodplain. As far as your question about insurance, I think anybody who's in any floodplain is eligible for insurance. That's more of a individual -type inquiry I guess, so I think it's hard to say. With FEMA doing map revisions which I believe will -- we're looking at, I guess when everything's in place with all the planning stuff, then it's constantly changing the flood elevations and, you know, the 100 -year events and storm events, that's all based on accumulated data so it is constantly changing because it's relative to the building. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Right. I understand that it is constantly changing and the important connection to inform people that are Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 living in that area. We were not informed of that. And, again, I know that -- now I know that we were eligible for flood insurance, but we asked the right questions and the answers were consistent. And so for me when I'm hearing comments I want people to know our homes -- you're talking about our homes, it's not that development, it's our homes. And I invite you to come and visit me in Idyllwild and know that we made a decision to move from a large home with a bigger footprint to be within walking distance of Iowa City and establish a home here. And we are in Idyllwild because of a decision many years ago by the city council, and if nothing is done to protect the 92 families that are living there, it's another mistake in my opinion that the city will be making if we do not protect Idyllwild and everyone else. MS. BAKER: We have about 20 more minutes for comments, 23 to be exact, before we have to exit the church. So I just want to remind everybody try and stay on time with their comments. Additional comments can be taken outside after we exit the room. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Terri Miller I own eight condos in Idyllwild. I have Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 development hasn't been -- was not in the floodplain when it was built, and I would like to be able to finish up the development. I more families to that area, b the property tax roles of the while those three homes would protection of the floodplain, already there. know that will add it it also increases city. And I think also enjoy the there are 92 families So I have to say I'm very interested in seeing the project move forward at the 500 plus 3 feet. Many sources have come out saying -- and this includes the DNR -- that this flood event of 2008 is not an isolated event. The landscape has changed greatly over the last 20 or so years to the point where a flood event is not once in a lifetime like it used to be, or maybe it never was, but it certainly is not now. And if the flood elevation of that area is constantly changing, I think that there needs to be some protection there. Just as California -- the state of California builds to protect buildings against earthquakes, Florida protects against hurricanes, Iowa City needs to protect against these floods. This is not only part of our history, but the floods Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 are going to be part of our future too. We have the opportunity now to mitigate this area from flood for these families, and I think Iowa City should accept the responsibility and do so. I do have a question also, and it has to do with flood gates. I just would like some explanation of what they are and what they do. MR. ENGEL: Floodgates -- and that's a great question and one that I have not addressed, they are actually a hole in the wall to allow access. And I didn't have any photos included in here, but there are three accesses to the church, and on this there's three accesses to the church over here to allow for ingress and egress, you could have a physical barrier there, it would be -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Unless there was a flood event. MR. ENGEL: Exactly. And there would be gates in full heighth moved in place. There would be a foundation, and that would be sealed up. Typically you see it in a lot of railroads, you see them all around the flood walls, there's an access issue. They can usually be in place within 3 hours. Thank you for the question. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Mary Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 Murphy. I live in Parkview terrace. And I have to say that having listened to a couple of the comments here, most notably by Terry Shapler and Sally Cline, I'm beginning to feel like Parkview Terrace is the unpopular stepchild here. We like to think of ourselves as equally important. I think the primary question we need to ask ourselves here is really what is in the best interest for the Iowa City community and as a whole? Idyllwild can clearly protect itself at this point in time by purchasing flood insurance, and the condo association board this time around set up a reserve to cover damages not covered by flood insurance. That's certainly a lot less expensive for the ordinary Iowa City taxpayer such as myself and people who are retired than it would be to pay for any of this flood mitigation. And I would point out that the property tax rate in Iowa City is currently a lot higher than in North Liberty and Solon, and I'd hate to see it go any higher. I certainly don't want my property tax dollars used to repay general obligation bonds. And I'd like to remind everyone that a CGG grant is not free money, it's our federal tax dollars. And if we don't use it, it goes back to Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next, one of the reasons the city thought it needed a levy or general application for funding was to put a road on top of it and provide a secondary access to the peninsula. That clearly can't be done. Foster Road does provide the only access to the peninsula, and that was known when it was developed by the city. That road can certainly be raised to provide access for far less cost than any of the flood mitigation alternatives. Additionally that road is going to develop the land by Dubuque Street and another road can be put through there. Now, some of the alternatives included the 100 -year flood option for mitigation, my question is what's the point? Jeff Davidson our city planner said himself that in December of 2010, that wouldn't have protected against the 2008 development. My next big concern is the esthetics of the project. Levies are a lot like pigs as are flood walls. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still looks like a pig. So what we're going to have here is a big concrete wall when you put a flood wall in. It's going to look like everybody's in a Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 prison. The cost of making it pretty, if you even could, are not included in the cost we're seeing here tonight. Next, Iowa City is going to improve the Dubuque Street entrance. When people come to visit me and they enter Iowa city off of Dubuque Street, I would prefer that they not see big flood mitigation in the form of a earth and levy or a flood wall. That entrance should be a green beltway, it should be attractive. It should make people want to get off the interstate and come into Iowa City. I would also add in terms of esthetics that the impact of our city park ought to be analyzed. When I bike or walk or run along the path along city park, I don't want to look across the river and see a concrete wall or a levy or some combination thereof. I want to see expansive landscape. At the time when other cities are embracing our connection to the river, it seems a shame that we're talking about building a flood mitigation. I also have some practical questions. My question is how does the city plan to get Idyllwild residents to agree on whether the grant one or more easements to get this project done? Not all Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 Idyllwild residents support the levy, yet all own an undivided interest in the whole common area. The condo quickly bought out even though the property owners could have been eligible, but they couldn't get agreement over there. It is true and Mike Crawford stood up at a city council meeting and requested that the buyout offer be withdrawn so they can secure additional relief, and that's reflected in one of the city council transcripts. My next question would be are the consultants going to issue agreements to those property residents who may be impacted along with to the city of Iowa City in case design alternatives turn out to be wrong and you turn out to be wrong about the stability of all of this? Then I got a really practical question, if a flood wall is built, any time I've ever seen a concrete structure, invariably someone comes along and puts graffiti on it, what are you doing to do about that? Who's going to maintain that and make sure that there is no graffiti on the flood wall protecting a very expensive condominium building? MS. BAKER: I think we have several questions asked. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could I just finish Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 up real quick? I do want to object that the consultant who did the hydraulic modeling isn't here tonight and was not here last week. I don't see any supporting documentation. I live in Parkview Terrace, I know if you close off the river basin, the water's going somewhere. We don't want it in our neighborhood. And I have to say that if the developer would get a flood and then build additional condominium buildings, it's horrible public policy. We shouldn't be building in a floodplain. Finally, I want to say I'm willing to live with the risk I bought. I'd like to see everyone else do the same. The river is not a surprise for those of us who live here, it's clearly visible from Idyllwild if you're walking through it, it's visible from Taft Speedway, they admirably accepted the risks, it's visible from Parkview Terrace if you walk around Parkview Terrace. Everybody should have to live with the risk they bought. We all bought on -- MS. BAKER: We'll go ahead and answer the questions now. MR. ENGEL: The point of the 100 -year flood alternatives, they were as comparison from Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 100 -year to 500 -year, so it's another incremental. It would provide some protection 3 feet above the 100 year elevation which was the purpose of those. As far as esthetics, as I referenced earlier, we heard about last week. Tonight was not only the impact of Idyllwild but also city park from esthetics across the river. As far as how the city acquired easements es from Idyllwild, that's kind of beyond our -- what we can identify easements to be required. That is something that would have to be addressed as the project moves forward. As far as -- we have a standard design and practice liability that cover issues. Graffiti, absolutely, it seems like everything gets tagged. There are some treatments to make removal easier, but it would have to be the biggest issue would be included. And hydraulic modeling, Mike Ryan who did the modeling is here. The report, as I said, you can get a copy of it and it will be included in our draft report and will be available to view. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can we put that Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 MS. BAKER: We will. And we'll hold extra comments until after. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Robert Benson. I live at 22 Cold Court in the Idyllwild group. There is no relevance as to the 100 -year flood as I see it. Do you know who caused the flood of June 22, 2008? These questions still come up in a paper this morning. It was a question a lot of people do not know what caused the flood. The flood was caused by the Corps of Engineers. In 184 I was leaving Iowa City going back by near the reservoir and the water was halfway up the hill to the apartments above, and so the order came from the Corps of Engineers because the water had risen some in the reservoir. "Open the gates," they yelled. And so the gates of the reservoir dam were opened wide, and all of the water poured out into the streams in Iowa River, and that's what caused the flood in case people don't know what happened. I don't realize that that will happen again very early. I predict that that will be controlled in the future by the dam that was put in there because four -- three other dams were built at the same time around the Midwest. Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 So I just wanted to mention that so now you know what caused the flood of 2008. Will it happen again? Who knows. Thank you. MR. ENGEL: Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Robert McCain, 1438 Holdline (sp) Avenue, Iowa City. For the do- nothing alternative and the 2A alternative, raise Foster Road, and I don't know that there is any segment in your draft report that addresses available financial mitigation. It's not flood mitigation, but it's financial mitigation that's available to residents on the floodplain of purchasing flood insurance from the national flood insurance program. And I think it's important that some sort of approximate cost to residents in this floodplain area be provided for purchasing flood insurance or for all the residents in the floodplain area be provided to the city council under those two alternatives. So the city council can see some dollar differences between spending on infrastructure or flood mitigation, and residents spending on flood insurance for financial loss mitigation. So I would like to see that comparison Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 offered in the draft report to the city counsel so they have that information. MR. ENGEL: Withstanding the annual policy costs? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Correct. Yeah. Yeah. I assume that everyone in the floodplain in this area is available -- is eligible to purchase flood insurance from the national flood insurance program. MR. ENGEL: That was good information. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Ryan Leary. And I just wanted to echo a sentiment that was done quite earlier by Mrs. Wilcox. I think for the benefit of the 99.9 percent of people who aren't here tonight and the 99 percent of people that don't live in the affected area, I think September and October would be a much more appropriate time for the council to consider this. There's a lot of discussions that go on through social media and through council meetings and through the newspaper comment section, and I think if you took a survey of people walking down every grocery store in this county, you'd get a pretty accurate sentiment of what people think of Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 MR. ENGEL: Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is James White, 121 Taft Speedway. One thing I want to mention about flood insurance, it does not cover anything outside of the building. So flood insurance will not cover your yard, and if there's a levy built and the water increases in turbulence and speed, it will eradicate and erode your yard. That -- replacement of that yard, that land, that soil is at your expense, all the trees, all the shrubs, all the driveways, sidewalks, you lose are at your expense. So that's one thing. The other thing one of the gentleman mentioned about narrowing of the river. I don't have a pointer here, but right where -- right where no name road is, it was going into the river there, that river wants to go straight. If the river wants to go straight, believe me, because I live right on that corner, okay. The river, it bends and kind of it turns to the bottom of the screen, but it wants to go straight. In other words, you build a levy there, you build a concrete wall, it just is going to love that because it's going to go right straight Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right along there, and as they found out in Des Moines County, as they found out in Lake Delhi, earth and levy do not withstand that kind of pressure. You ever saw those YouTube drinkers, go out to Lake Delhi, you won't want to live on any side of the levy. So that river is going to go really fast and going to go right alongside there. There's no guarantee that anybody is going to be protected. Now, in 1993 before I tore down the old 37 Engler Cottage that had a separate garage that stood by itself side, 10 feet away from the home that was built in 1990. And by the way it stood the 1993 flood, we never had any water in the place. It was 3 feet going in the door. I will tell you between the garage and between that house, in that 10 -foot area, that river scoured out a path -- a ditch that was about 8 -feet wide and I would say 30 -feet long. It just dug a hole right through. That didn't move the house off the foundation, didn't move the garage, but that's what's going to happen. Now I have a garage, it's not a very big garage. That's a pretty big levy. So I'm proposing I think in Des Moines County just north of Burlington, they had a serious Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 situation, very similar to this, and I have photographs of that. MR. ENGEL: That was right along here where you had that -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah. Right -- to the right. See that corner, that bend, it wants to go straight. In fact the reason it wants to go straight for you historians because it wants to go where it used to go, and that was to provide water to the mill because the water really actually went north, then came south. So where Carol Miller Park is now, they didn't have a mill there for nothing. It wasn't on dry land. So that's where the river wants to go. Thank you. MR. ENGEL: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Are there commenters that haven't had an opportunity to speak before we have our final two comments? AUDIENCE MEMBER: This is important, but it seems like compared -- it seems small compared to the big picture, you know. I'm looking at what's happening throughout the Mississippi River valley basin and elsewhere, and really there is potential flooding anywhere and everywhere depending on we have drain fall in a certain amount of time. Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 Our goal is to minimize flood damage. The best way to achieve that is to increase soil infiltration and permeability so that rain water won't run off and increase the rivers. 400 years ago, Eastern Iowa was covered by prairies and woodlands and soil had much better permeability and much less rain water running of. It's obvious we're not going to go back to various woods like it used to be 400 years ago, but I really wanted to encourage anyone who's interested in preventing flooding and flood damage just to find out about and support more comprehensive and effective sustainable rain water management practices to improve soil infiltration and permeability. Okay. Now, I want to make time for you. Thanks a lot. MR. ENGEL: Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I just want another clarification on your pile ons. And all these designs are you not using pile on then? You're using a T -wall to build below 10 feet or so, so there is still possibility of hydraulic pressure pushing in in most of these. So in your process there is not pile ons? Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TM MR. ENGEL: Anything that falls less than 10 feet at the heighth. AUDIENCE MEMBER: To what depth? Any wall less than 10 feet. MR. ENGEL: It's a high wall. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So 100 year plus a 3 -feet wall, that would not be a 10 foot wall so you would use high wall, so there's still the possibility of hydraulic pressure at that point. MR. ENGEL: It would be against the high wall, yes. Anything above 10 feet would have a T -wall with a foundation with a total drain and relief walls in there to relieve that total pressure. AUDIENCE MEMBER: My second question is with any of those designs of flood mitigation, any of them but the 2B which is do nothing to raise Foster Road. When you put flood measures into place, you're changing the way your flood insurance works for the people that live inside of Idyllwild. So if a flood happens, and there is not -- it doesn't capsize or go over the flood wall, and there is water that comes up, whether it be hydraulic from rain, from any other source, from failure, from pumps, from any other complications, are you letting Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 pay them because it is specifically stated inside of what flood insurance is that's considered back up or mechanical failure so the only way people in Idyllwild, if they have a policy, have coverage is that the levy has to break or be over top of it. Has that been made known to anybody in Idyllwild? MR. REICHART: If we decide to move forward with any of these projects, the zone that Idyllwild -- or the zone that will be behind the flood mitigation alternative, we go from Zone A to Zone X which is a different designation, and I'm not familiar with the policies. I know there's a difference in them. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm very familiar, and I have a policy. If there is a failure at any point, whether it's drainage, rain water, I mean, it could just fill up with rain water, 2.5 acres, that's normally not floodable, and it's not join property owners. It's questionable that they can even have flood insurance because common associations policy is considered within, you have to have two owners fail in order for your flood insurance to take effect. So I think some of these criteria should Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 be given to condo owners so they're made aware they're paying flood insurance they're paying premiums on may not be developed. Thank you. MS. BAKER: This will be our last comment on the microphone. We do encourage you to fill out the comment forms on the web or that we handed you tonight. You can mail them in or you can leave them with us. We have comment forms at the back table and in the hallway. And staff will be here for the rest -- for a little while following the meeting to answer any additional questions you might have with that. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Real quick, I did spend many, many years working for a property casualty insurance company. Mark Phelps is right about the insurance. He -- it's not going to cover damage, and it may be hard to purchase insurance to I did want to just make one slight clarification, I recognize there are 92 families that live in Idyllwild, but I would like to point out there are not 92 owners who reside in Idyllwild. Many of those condominiums were bought after the flood at low prices, rehabbed, and are now being rented out. Thank you. Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 MR. ENGEL: Thank you. MS. BAKER: With that, we'll be moving out into the atrium. So if you have any questions, anybody with a name tag out there will be able to help. We thank you for coming out tonight. I'll let Jason wrap it up. MR. REICHART: Thank you. Any closing comments, again, if you have any other questions or comments, or you'd like to speak to any of the representatives, we'll be congregating out in the atrium area. Thank you. (8:02 p.m. - Adjournment.) Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MIN CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I, Megan McDermott, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Iowa, hereby certify that these proceedings are a true record of said proceedings; that I am not related by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree to any party, his attorney, or an employee of any of them; that I am not financially interested in the action; and that I am not the attorney or employee of any party. To all of which I have affixed my signature this 26th day of June, 2012. MEGAN McDERMOTT, CSR Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 V. $10 (1) 92 $11(1) 721 $3(l) 91 $8(l) 719 xx (4) 43:13,13,13,13 A able (2) 25:3 ;43:5 above (5) 14:19;23:6 ;32:2; 33:14,40:11 Absolutely (4) 7:4,9,12 ;32:15 accept(1) 263 accepted (2) 9:24 ;31:17 access (10) 7:8 ;14:18;20:14, 15 ;21:8 ;26:11,22; 28:6,8,10 accesses (2) 26:12,13 accessibility (1) 66 accomplish (2) 15:11,22 accomplished (1) 15:18 accounted (1) 77 accumulated (1) 2321 accurate (1) 3525 achieve (1) 392 acquired (1) 328 acres (2) 14:11,41:18 across (7) 5:20 ;17:6,14,18; 18:17;29:15 ;32:7 actually (2) 26:10 ;38:10 add (3) 22:12;25:4;29:12 addition (1) 68 additional (5) 9:16 ;24:22 ;30:8; 31:9 ;42:11 Additionally (1) 2812 address (1) 48 addressed (2) 26:9 ;32:11 addresses (1) 3411 Adjournment (1) 43:12 admirably (1) 31:17 adverse (3) 21:16,19 ;22:4 advisable (1) 21:18 affected (2) 12:16 ;35:17 again (9) 2:22;9:23 ;13:18; 14:16 ;15:15 ;242; 33:22 ;34:3,43:8 against (10) 8:5 ;17:19,24; 18:20;21:12 ;25:22, 23,24 ;28:19,40:10 agencies (1) 1218 ago (3) 24:13 ;39:5,9 agree (2) 9:3 ;29:24 agreement (1) 305 agreements (1) 30:11 agricultural (1) 1215 ahead (1) 3122 allow (4) 17:21 ;18:24 ;26:10, 14 almost (1) 13:17 along (11) 4:11 ;8:12 ;11:4; 15:8;17:22;29:i4,15; 30:12,18 ;37:1 ;38:3 alongside (1) 377 alternative (15) 3:13 ;4:24 ;6:10 ;8:8, 10 ;9:4,4 ;15:1,10,15; 16:2 ;20:13 ;34:8,9; 41:11 alternatives (18) 3:3,8,15 ;4:3 ;6:8, 12 ;9:13 ;14:23 ;16:6; 19:24;20:10 ;21:5; 22:16;28:11,15; 30:13;31:25;34:20 amount (1) 3825 analysis (1) 6:17 analyzed (1) 2914 annual (1) 353 apartments (1) 33:14 apologize (1) 16:19 application (2) 19:11;28:4 applied (1) 924 approaching (1) 5:8 appropriate (1) 35:18 approved(1) 203 approximate (1) 34:16 archaeologist (1) 210 area (15) 5:9 ;11:24 ;15:5; 19:12;24:1;25:5,19; 26:2 ;302 ;34:17,19; 35:7,17 ;37:17 ;43:11 areas (1) 614 around (6) 3:12 ;13:17;2622; 27:12 ;31:19 ;3325 associated (1) 2017 association (1) 2712 associations (1) 4122 assume (5) 9:14 ;10:6 ;17:16; 18:12 ;35:6 assuming (1) 7:1 atrium (2) 43:3,11 attend (1) 12:1 attention (1) 63 attorney (1) 522 attractive (1) 2910 AUDIENCE (52) 2:3 ;3:5,17,18 ;5:21; 7:10,13,24 ;8:7 ;9:7; 10:4,11;11:3,6,11,12; 13:6,9;14:1,8;16:7,9, 16,21;18:3;19:5,6,16, 20;20:18;21:12; 22:13,17;23:23; 24:24;26:16,25; 30:25;32:24;33:3; 34:6;35:5,12;36:3; 38:5,19;39:19;40:3,6, 15;41:15;42:13 August (3) 13:15,18,18 available (6) 7:19 ;21:2 ;32:23; 34:11,13 ;35:7 Avenue (2) 7:14 ;34:7 aware (2) 41:1 ;42:1 away (2) 15:7 ;37:12 I. back (13) 5:24 ;6:19 ;8:12; 9:9 ;14:9 ;15:8 ;19:17; 21:17;27:25 ;3312; 39:8 ;41:3,42:9 BAKER (9) 13:24 ;14:6;2418; 30:23 ;31:22;33:1; 38:16,42:4,43:2 ball (1) 1818 barrier (1) 2615 baseball (2) 8:14,16 based (3) 3:22 ;6:9 ;23:20 basic (1) 810 basin (4) 12:18 ;14:15 ;31:5; 3823 become (1) 2121 becomes (1) 224 beginning (2) 4:7 ;27:4 behind (3) 8:15 ;14:21,41:10 below (1) 3922 behway (1) 299 bend (1) 386 bends (1) 3621 beneficial (2) 18:12 ;19:1 DDR Meetings June 6, 2012 benefit (2) 20:16 ;35:15 benefits (2) 17:21;21:9 Benson (1) 33:4 besides (2) 7:15,18 best (4) 2:16 ;12:9;27:8; 39:1 better (7) 2:11 ;11:23 ;12:14, 25 ;17:11 ;18:5 ;39:6 beyond (2) 819 ;329 bias (1) 12:13 bid (1) 61 big (10) 2:21,21 ;820; 17:21;2820,24;29:7; 37:22,23 ;3821 bigger (2) 11:22;24:10 biggest (1) 32:17 bike (1) 29:14 bit (1) 816 board (1) 27:12 bonds (2) 7:22 ;27:22 both (3) 2:24 ;5:16 ;16:11 bottom (1) 36:22 bought (7) 22:21,21 ;30:3; 31:13,20,20;42:23 break (1) 41:6 bridge (1) 58 bringing (1) 16:18 brought (1) 5:18 budget (1) 7:21 build (10) 9:2 ;11:7 ;17:18; 20:13,16 ;25:61:8; 36:23,24 ;39:22 budding (8) 8:19 ;10:6 ;14:17; 23:22;29:20 ;30:22; 31:10 ;36:7 buildings (2) 25:22 ;31:9 `Tin -U- Script® Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. (1) $10 - buildings Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 V. builds (1) 2522 built (7) 2:5 ;23:6 ;253; 30:17 ;3324 ;36:8; 37:13 Bulldon (1) 204 Burdis (1) 3:19 Burlington (1) 3725 buy (1) 2223 buyout (1) 307 A calculate (1) 173 calculation (2) 4:3,4 California (2) 25:21,22 call (1) 525 came (6) 6:4,24 ;13:17 ;23:8; 33:14 ;38:11 camera (1) 147 can (27) 3:7 ;7:10 ;8:25; 11:23;12:5;13:12; 15:18 ;16:23 ;17:3,6; 21:1021;24:22;25:1; 26:23;27:10;28:9,13, 22;30:8;32:10,21,24; 34:20,41:20 ;42:7,7 capsize (1) 4022 car (1) 10:19 Carol (1) 38:11 case (2) 30:13 ;33:20 casualty (1) 42:15 Catherine (1) 22:17 Cathy (1) 13:9 caused (5) 33:7,10,11,19 ;34:2 Cedar (1) 522 certain (2) 22:6 ;38:25 certainly (8) 5:15 ;7:6 ;14:18,19; 25:18;27:14,21 ;28:9 CGG (4) 7:20 ;19:8;21:3; 27:23 Chait (1) 2425 chance (1) 1018 change(1) 188 changed(3) 22:20;23:2;25:15 changing (5) 23:19,21,24 ;25:19; 4019 cheaper (1) 1221 choose (1) 322 chose (1) 425 chosen (2) 2:25 ;4:21 chunk (1) 820 church (4) 8:15 ;24:20;26:12, 13 cities (2) 12:12;29:18 citizens (1) 22:14 City (47) 2:5 ;5:19 ;10:8,11, 11,21;11:1;12:18; 13:13,15,19 ;20:5; 21:4,6;22:6,6,14,14; 24:11,13,16 ;25:6,24; 26:3;27:9,15,19;28:3, 9,17;29:4,6,11,13,15, 23;30:6,9,13,13;32:6, 8 ;33:12 ;34:7,19,20; 35:1 city -wide (2) 7:17 ;8:2 clarification (3) 9:11 ;39:20,42:20 clearly (4) 13:19;27:10 ;28:6; 31:15 Cline (2) 14:1 ;27:3 close (1) 315 closed (1) 1124 closer (1) 3:14 closing (1) 438 code (2) 10:12 ;11:1 codes (1) 10:12 Cold (1) 334 Colen (1) 2218 collateral (1) 6:15 collect (1) 1820 combination (2) 15:6 ;29:17 coming (4) 10:21 ;14:11,15; 435 comment (9) 2:13 ;7:11 ;17:10; 19:3 ;23:4;35:22; 42:5,6,8 commenters (1) 38:16 comments (10) 13:25;24:5,19,21, 22 ;27:2 ;332 ;38:18; 43:8,9 common (2) 30:2 ;4121 community (6) 2:16,17,19 ;4:10; 14:19;27:9 company (1) 4215 compared (4) 17:8 ;22:5 ;38:20,21 comparison (3) 21:5 ;31:25 ;34:25 complications (1) 4025 comprehensive (1) 39:12 concern (3) 4:6 ;13:16;28:20 concrete (7) 4:11 ;14:13 ;15:24; 28:24;29:16 ;30:18; 3624 condition (3) 9:12,13,20 condo (3) 27:11 ;30:3,42:1 condominium (2) 30:22 ;31:9 condominiums (1) 4223 condos (1) 2425 confuse (1) 1425 confused (1) 1425 confusion (1) 1620 congregating (1) 43:10 connection (2) 23:25;29:19 consider (1) 35:19 consideration (2) 6:17 ;10:22 considered (4) 6:6,9 ;41:3,22 consistent (1) 244 constantly (4) 23:18,21,24 ;25:19 constructed (1) 234 constructing (1) 62 consultant (1) 312 consultants (2) 13:12 ;30:11 controlled (1) 33:23 controversial (1) 1923 converging (1) 58 cooperation (1) 1217 copy (1) 3221 Coralville (1) 122 corner(6) 8:20 ;17:5,14 ;18:6; 36:21 ;38:6 Corps (2) 33:11,15 correctly (2) 13:14 ;19:15 cost (8) 12:20,25 ;16:1; 21:11;28:10 ;29:1,2; 3416 costs (2) 20:17 ;35:4 Cottage (1) 37:11 council (8) 13:15;24:13 ;30:6, 9 ;34:19,20 ;35:1921 counsel (1) 35:1 county (5) 4:14 ;7:25 ;3524; 37:2,25 couple (3) 16:22 ;17:21 ;27:2 Court (1) 334 cover (6) 21:7 ;27:13 ;32:14; 36:6,7,42:16 coverage(2) 6:7 ;41:5 Min -U- Script® Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 DDR Meetings June 6, 2012 covered (2) 27:13 ;39:5 Crawford (1) 30:6 create (1) 21:19 created (1) 18:18 creek (1) 812 criteria (1) 4125 cross (1) 172 curious (1) 206 current (2) 10:7,12 currently (1) 27:19 cut (2) 8:20 ;18:4 cyclists (1) 1020 C dam (2) 33:17,23 damage (5) 6:15 ;13:1 ;39:1,11; 42:17 damages (3) 12:23;21:21 ;27:13 dams (1) 3324 data (2) 924 ;2321 Davidson (1) 28:17 days (1) 39 December (1) 28:18 decide (1) 41:8 decision (2) 24:9,12 decrease (1) 5:11 decreased (1) 3:9 dedicated (1) 19:9 defend (1) 12:7 degree (1) 2024 Delhi (2) 37:2,5 depending (1) 38:24 depicted (1) (2) builds - depicted V. 916 depth (1) 403 Des (2) 37:1,24 describe (1) 89 described (1) 11:16 description (1) 11:19 design (3) 6:17 ;30:13 ;32:13 designation (1) 41:12 designs (2) 39:21,40:16 determine (1) 61 determines (1) 18:15 develop (2) 14:12;28:12 developed (2) 28:9 ;42:3 developer (2) 11:7 ;31:8 development (10) 10:7 ;11:8 ;17:13, 20,25 ;23:5;24:7; 25:2,4;28:19 diagonal (1) 812 diamond (2) 8:14,16 diamonds (1) 18:19 difference (5) 15:1,3,4 ;16:5; 41:14 differences (1) 34:21 different (2) 14:10,41:12 directly (1) 18:17 discuss (1) 17:15 discussions (1) 3520 distance (1) 24:11 ditch (1) 37:17 DNR (1) 25:13 documentation (1) 314 Dodge (1) 1021 dollar (1) 34:21 dollars (4) 19:8,8;27:22,25 done (7) 12:21,23 ;22:9; 24:14;28:7;29:25; 35:14 do- nothing (1) 348 door (1) 37:15 Douglas (1) 87 down (8) 14:11,14 ;18:7,24; 21:24;222 ;3523; 37:10 draft (6) 6:22 ;7:2,11 ;3222; 34:10 ;35:1 drain (3) 17:12 ;38:25 ;40:12 drainage (1) 41:17 draw (1) 176 drawdown (1) 5:12 drawing (4) 9:9,10,15 ;10:15 drawings (1) 1023 Drew (1) 1621 drinkers (1) 374 Drive (2) 2:7 ;16:22 driveways (1) 3612 dry (1) 38:13 Dubuque (4) 8:11 ;28:13;29:5,6 dug (1) 37:19 during (2) 3:10 ;18:19 E earlier (2) 32:5 ;35:14 early (1) 3322 earth (2) 29:8 ;37:3 earthquakes (1) 2523 Easel (1) 36 easements (3) 29:25 ;32:8,10 easier (1) 3216 easily (1) 1425 east (1) 1415 Eastern (1) 395 echo (1) 35:13 effect (2) 19:1 ;41:24 effective (5) 12:20,25 ;17:13,14; 39:13 egress (2) 7:9 ;26:14 eight (1) 2425 either (1) 156 elevate (1) 15:14 elevating (1) 62 elevation (14) 3:12,13 ;4:23 ;5:12; 9:10,21,22,23 ;10:1; 15:22 ;16:2;23:7; 25:18 ;32:3 elevations (1) 23:19 eligible (4) 23:13;24:3 ;30:4; 35:7 eliminate (3) 17:11,17 ;18:6 else (4) 18:11;21:21 ;24:17; 31:14 elsewhere (1) 3823 embracing (1) 29:19 encourage(3) 14:22 ;39:10 ;42:5 end (1) 72 ENGEL (36) 3:4,11,4:19 ;7:4,12; 9:6,18 ;10:9,24 ;11:4, 10;13:3,8,23 ;15:4; 16:8,13,19 ;18:1; 19:3 ;20:12;22:10; 26:8,18 ;31:24 ;34:5; 35:3,10 ;36:2 ;38:3, 15 ;39:18 ;40:1,5,10; 43:1 Engineers (2) 33:11,15 Engler (1) 37:11 enjoy (1) 257 enormous (1) 92 enter (1) 296 entire (3) 2:17 ;5:2 ;17:13 entrance (2) 29:5,9 equal (1) 1217 equally (1) 276 eradicate (1) 369 erode (1) 36:10 es (1) 329 establish (1) 2411 esthetic (1) 5:19 esthetics (8) 4:9 ;5:14,16,16; 28:20;29:12 ;32:4,7 even (6) 11:18 ;14:13 ;22:3; 29:1 ;30:3,41:21 evening (1) 3:18 event (9) 3:11,14,15 ;13:4,4; 25:13,14,16 ;26:17 events (2) 23:20,20 everybody (4) 13:19 ;18:11 ;24:21; 31:19 everybody's (1) 28:25 everyone (4) 24:17;27:23 ;31:13; 356 everything's (1) 23:17 everywhere (1) 3824 exact (1) 2419 exactly (2) 16:24;26:18 except(1) 152 exception (1) 10:13 excess (1) 3:14 existing (2) 10:25;22:11 exit (2) 24:20,23 expansive (1) 2917 expense (2) HDR Meetings June 6, 2012 36:11,13 expensive (2) 27:14 ;30:22 explained (1) 625 explanation (1) 267 express (1) 13:16 extra (1) 332 F fact (1) 387 factor (1) 18:15 fail (2) 19:4 ;4123 failure (3) 40:24,41:4,16 fall (1) 38:25 falls (1) 40:1 familiar (2) 41:13,15 families (5) 24:14;25:5,8 ;263; 42:20 family (1) 25 far (7) 5:6 ;12:20;23:12; 28:10 ;32:4,8,13 farms (1) 1212 fast (3) 17:2 ;18:16 ;37:7 feasibility (1) 62 federal (2) 7:15 ;27:24 feel (3) 2:20 ;19:25;27:4 feet (25) 3:24 ;9:16,17,20; 10:13 ;11:8,9 ;15:18, 21,21,22,23 ;16:11, 11,15,15,17 ;25:12; 32:2;37:12,15;39:22; 40:2,4,11 FEMA (2) 23:8,16 fences (3) 18:19,24 ;19:4 fill (2) 41:18,42:6 final (1) 38:18 Finally (1) 31:12 Min -U- Scripts Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. (3) depth - Finally Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 V. financial (3) 34:11,12,23 find (1) 39:11 finish (2) 25:4 ;30:25 fire (1) 725 first (5) 2:9 ;4:19 ;17:10; 22:19;23:1 fiscal (1) 722 fixes (1) 1222 flood (85) 3:8,10 ;6:19 ;9:11, 14,15,19 ;11:17,18, 19,21 ;12:22 ;13:2; 15:8 ;18:20,23 ;19:9, 11,13,17;20:15;21:9; 22:20,22,23,23,24; 23:1,5,7,19 ;24:3; 25:13,16,18 ;26:2,6, 17,22 ;27:11,13,17; 28:2,11,16,22,24; 29:7,8,20 ;30:17,21; 31:8,25;33:7,7,10,10, 20 ;34:2,12,14,14,17, 22,23 ;35:8,8 ;36:5,7; 37:14;39:1,11;40:16, 18,19,21,22 ;41:1,3, 11,21,23 ;42:2,24 floodable (1) 41:19 Floodgates (1) 268 flooding (5) 12:8,10,23 ;38:24; 39:11 floodplain (12) 2:4,8,15 ;23:11,13; 25:2,8 ;31:11 ;34:13, 17,18 ;35:6 floodplains (2) 21:19;23:9 floods (3) 14:9 ;25:2425 Florida (1) 2523 flow (3) 18:5,21,25 flowing (2) 17:3 ;18:17 flows (2) 5:7,8 focus (1) 6:13 folks (2) 5:23 ;6:20 following (2) 2:1 ;42:10 follow -up (1) 1922 foot (5) 5:11 ;22:1,1 ;23:6; 407 footprint (1) 2410 forefathers (1) 211 form (1) 298 former (1) 93 forms (2) 42:6,8 forward (4) 2:16 ;25:11 ;32:12; 41:9 Foster (13) 2:18 ;9:1 ;11:14; 14:14,17,19 ;17:10; 19:24;20:20- 12 1:2- 28:7 ;34:9,40:18 found (4) 15:24;23:10 ;37:1,2 foundation (4) 9:25 ;26:20 ;37:20; 4012 four (1) 3324 free (1) 2724 free - standing (1) 15:12 front (1) 2010 fun (1) 2619 fully (1) 213 funded (1) 214 funding (4) 6:7 ;7:20 ;21:3;28:4 fungible (1) 198 future (3) 11:16;26:1 ;33:23 G garage(5) 37:11,16,21,22,22 gardens(1) 12:14 Gusher (1) 2:4 gates (4) 26:6,19 ;33:16,17 general(4) 7:22 ;16:23;2722; 28:4 gentleman (1) 36:15 gets (2) 14:18 ;32:15 Gillman (1) 1621 girth (1) 1522 given (1) 421 goal (1) 39:1 goes (2) 6:19 ;27:25 Good (7) 3:18 ;13:19 ;17:16; 19:3 ;20:1,5 ;35:10 Google (1) 21:16 gosh (1) 1925 government (1) 1217 graffiti (3) 30:19,21 ;32:14 grant (3) 21:7 ;27:24;29:24 great (4) 8:20 ;9:18 ;16:20; 269 greatest (2) 4:22,23 greatly (1) 25:15 green (1) 299 Greg (1) 3:19 grocery (1) 3524 group (1) 335 guarantee (1) 378 guess (3) 7:19 ;23:15,17 guidelines (1) 235 half (2) 15:18;21:25 halfway (1) 33:13 hallway (1) 429 handed(1) 427 handout (1) 5:1 happen(6) 6:18 ;11:18;22:2; 33:21 ;34:3 ;37:21 happened(1) 3320 happening (1) 3822 happens(1) 4021 hard (2) 23:15,42:17 hate (1) 2720 HDR (1) 54 heard (2) 21:22 ;32:5 hearing (1) 245 heck (1) 625 height (6) 15:12,19,20 ;16:13, 14 ;1816 heighth (3) 15:25;26:19 ;40:2 help (1) 435 Hi (1) 1112 high (6) 8:21 ;10:2 ;18:16; 40:5,8,11 higher (3) 11:18;27:19,21 highlight (1) 4:25 highly (1) 1020 hill (1) 33:13 himself (1) 2818 historians (1) 388 history (1) 2525 hold (1) 33:1 Holdline (1) 347 hole (2) 26:10 ;37:19 home (6) 2:5,7 ;3:10;24:10, 11 ;37:12 homes (4) 24:6,7,7 ;25:7 homesites (1) 225 horrible (1) 319 hours (1) 2623 house (3) 9:24 ;37:1620 households (1) HDR Meetings June 6, 2012 145 houses (1) 188 housing (2) 17:20,25 hundred (1) 822 hurricanes (1) 2523 hurt (1) 10:19 hydraulic (10) 3:25 ;4:1,4 ;5:7 ;7:8; 31:2 ;32:19 ;3923; 40:9,23 hydraulics (1) 322 hypothetical (1) 22:1 idea (2) 1624,25 identified (1) 49 identify (1) 32:10 Idyllwild (29) 5:17 ;6:11 ;11:16; 14:2,4,10,21 ;19:7; 22:18,21,25 ;23:4; 24:8,12,16,25;27:10; 29:23 ;30:1 ;31:16; 32:6,9 ;33:4 ;40:20; 41:5,7,10 ;42:21,22 ignores (1) 223 immediately (1) 424 impact (12) 4:1,5 ;6:4 ;7:6 ;16:5; 18:8,12 ;20:9 ;21:16, 19 ;29:13 ;32:6 impacted (6) 14:10,14,16 ;17:24; 18:10 ;30:12 impacts (14) 3:25 ;4:10,22,23; 5:5,6,17,19,19 ;6:10; 7:8,8 ;15:10 ;22:11 implementing (1) 1224 important (5) 11:25;23:25 ;27:6; 34:15 ;38:19 improve (6) 12:6 ;20:21;21:20, 24 ;29:4 ;39:14 inappropriate (1) 83 inaudible (1) 36 Min -U- Script.. Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. (4) financial -inaudible Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 V. include (1) 16:1 included (7) 7:23 ;22:25;26:11; 28:15;29:2 ;32:18,22 includes (3) 7:21 ;15:15;25:13 including (1) 2023 incorporated (1) 1024 increase (3) 5:13 ;39:2,4 increased (1) 12:12 increases(2) 25:5 ;36:9 incremental (2) 20:17 ;32:1 indication (1) 6:16 individual -type (1) 23:14 infiltration (3) 12:13 ;39:2,14 inform (1) 23:25 information (4) 4:21 ;5:4 ;35:2,11 informed (2) 22:24;24:1 infrastructure (1) 34:22 ingress (2) 7:9 ;26:14 initial (1) 722 inquiry (1) 23:15 inside (4) 10:7 ;23:11 ;40:20; 412 instead (2) 15:19,20 insurance(25) 6:7 ;22:22,23; 23:12,14;24:3;27:11, 13 ;34:14,15,18,23; 35:8,8 ;36:6,7 ;40:19; 41:1,3,21,24 ;42:2,15, 16,17 interest (2) 27:9 ;30:2 interested (2) 25:10 ;39:10 intereet (1) 21:15 intersection (1) 323 interstate (1) 29:11 into (9) 12:22 ;14:15 ;17:14; 20:7 ;29:11 ;33:18; 36:18,40:18 ;43:3 invariably (1) 30:18 invite (1) 248 Iowa (21) 2:5 ;10:8,11 ;12:5; 13:19;22:14 ;24:11; 25:24;26:3;27:9,15, 19 ;28:1 ;29:4,6,11; 30:13;33:12,19;34:7; 395 isolated (1) 25:14 issue (4) 4:9 ;26:23 ;30:11; 3217 issues (1) 3214 Items (1) 65 J jail (2) 4:14 ;7:25 James (1) 36:3 Janet (1) 196 Jason (3) 13:13 ;19:7,43:6 Jeff (1) 28:17 Joel (1) 1920 joggers (1) 1020 John (1) 11:12 join (1) 41:19 Jones (1) 87 Joy (1) 23 June (1) 338 justify (1) 824 K kind (7) 6:16 ;8:25;20:13, 16;32:9 ;36:21;37:3 known (2) 28:8 ;41:7 knows (1) 343 L Lake (2) 37:2,5 land (3) 28:12 ;36:11 ;38:13 landfill (1) 81 landscape (2) 25:14;29:18 large (1) 2410 last (6) 5:18 ;13:16;25:15; 31:3 ;32:5 ;42:4 later (2) 21:23;22:2 Leary (1) 35:13 least (2) 16:24 ;19:23 leave (2) 20:19,42:8 leaving (1) 33:12 legal (1) 2213 length (1) 822 less (5) 27:14;28:10 ;39:7; 401,4 letting (1) 4025 level (3) 22:20,24 ;23:2 Levies (1) 2821 levy (15) 6:2,19 ;821;15:6, 16 ;28:4 ;29:8,16; 30:1 ;36:8,23 ;373,6, 23 ;41:6 liability (1) 3214 liable (2) 21:21;22:7 Liberty (1) 2720 lifetime (1) 25:16 likewise (1) 44 limits (1) 1012 line (1) 176 lines (1) 52 Linn (1) 196 lipstick (1) 2822 listened (1) 272 little (6) 7:18,20 ;8:16 ;18:7, 10 ;42:10 live (18) 3:6,19,25 ;11:13; 13:10 ;14:2 ;19:21; 27:61:4,12,15,20; 33:4 ;35:17 ;36:20; 37:5 ;40:20,42:21 living (5) 6:5 ;17:22 ;18:9; 24:1,14 location (1) 102 locations (1) 420 long (1) 37:18 look (9) 5:7 ;6:23 ;7:6; 21; 13:16:10 ;20:9; 21:15;28:25 ;29:15 looked (3) 5:24 ;15:5,13 looking (5) 5:19 ;7:25 ;14:22; 23:17 ;38:21 looks (2) 6:12 ;28:23 lose (1) 36:13 losing (1) 61 loss (2) 5:13 ;34:23 lot (11) 17:9 ;18:5,6 ;21:17; 26:21;27:14,19; 28:21,33:9,35:20, 39:17 love (1) 3625 low (3) 8:17 ;16:4,42:24 1UT-1 mail (1) 427 mainly (1) 1222 maintain (1) 3020 major (1) 13:1 majority (1) 77 making (2) 24:16;29:1 manage (1) IIDR Meetings June 6, 2012 1123 management (4) 12:6,12,19 ;39:13 mandate (1) 12:22 many (6) 4:6 ;24:13;25:12; 42:14,14,23 map (2) 17:7 ;23:16 Marilyn (1) 7:13 Mark (2) 9:7 ;42:15 Marshall (1) 29 Mary (2) 22:17;26:25 math (1) 810 maximum (3) 4:25 ;5:5 ;15:17 may (5) 19:22;21:24 ;30:12; 42:3,17 maybe (4) 5:11 ;6:22 ;15:21; 25:17 McAntee (1) 11:13 McCain (1) 346 McKusick (2) 2:4,9 mean (3) 10:15 ;12:4,41:17 meandering (1) 2024 measure (1) 15:13 measurements (1) 13:1 measures (3) 12:11,16 ;40:18 mechanical (1) 414 media (1) 35:21 meeting (2) 30:6 ;42:11 meetings (1) 35:21 MEMBER (52) 2:3 ;3:5,17,18 ;5:21; 7:10,13,24 ;8:7 ;9:7; 10:4,11;11:3,6,11,12; 13:6,9;14:1,8;16:7,9, 16,21;18:3;19:5,6,16, 20 ;20:18 ;21:12; 22:13,17 ;2323; 24:24;26:16,25; 3025 ;3224 ;333; 34:6 ;35:5,12,363; Min -U- Script® Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. (5) include -MEMBER Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 V. 38:5,19;39:19 ;40:3,6, 15 ;41:15 ;42:13 mention (2) 34:1 ;36:5 mentioned (2) 18:15 ;36:16 met (1) 23:5 microphone (1) 425 Midwest (1) 33:25 might (2) 13:11,42:12 Mike (2) 30:5 ;32:19 milt (2) 38:10,12 Miller (2) 24:24 ;38:11 million (4) 7:19,21 ;9:1,2 minimize (1) 39:1 minutes (1) 24:19 mislabeled (1) 320 Mississippi (1) 3822 mistake (1) 24:15 mitigate (1) 262 mitigation (20) 3:8,16 ;19:9,12,13, 17;20:16;21:9;27:17; 28:11,16 ;29:7,21; 34:11,12,12,22,24; 40:16,41:11 model (1) 322 modeling (3) 31:2 ;32:1920 Moines (2) 37:2,24 money (7) 7:15,16 ;8:23,25; 15:2 ;20:3;27:24 month (1) 72 more (17) 2:8 ;6:22 ;12:20,22, 25 ;14:13 ;17:9 ;18:9, 10,25;23:14;24:18; 25:1,5;29:24 ;35:18; 39:12 morning (1) 33:9 most (5) 12:7 ;17:22 ;19:25; 27:3 ;39:24 move (5) 24:9 ;25:11 ;37:19, 20 ;418 moved (1) 2619 moves (1) 3212 moving (1) 433 Mrs (1) 35:14 much (5) 13:2 ;18:5 ;35:18; 39:6,7 Mullin (1) 714 municipalities (1) 21:18 Murphy (1) 271 must (1) 1716 myself (1) 2715 name (12) 2:3 ;3:5,19 ;7:13; 10:5 ;1920;2625; 33:3 ;35:12 ;363,18; 434 narrow (5) 16:25 ;17:7,18; 18:18,25 narrowing (2) 17:11 ;36:16 National (3) 23:5 ;34:14 ;35:8 near (1) 33:12 necessarily (1) 218 need (5) 4:20 ;11:1 ;14:25; 22:22;27:7 needed (1) 284 needs (2) 25:20,24 neighborhood (6) 8:5,6;20:19,21,21; 317 neighborhoods (1) 20:10 neighbors (2) 9:3 ;22:5 new (1) 1324 newspaper (1) 3522 next (5) 13:1 ;28:3,20 ;29:4; 30:10 next -door (1) 93 nice (1) 121 none (1) 912 normally (1) 41:19 Normandy (4) 2:7 ;3:24 ;6:3 ;16:22 north (6) 6:14 ;14:11 ;15:8; 27:20 ;37:25 ;38:11 notably (1) 273 0 object (1) 31:1 objective (2) 4:15 ;6:1 obligation (1) 2722 obligations (2) 7:22 ;22:14 observations (1) 417 obvious (2) 17:17 ;39:8 occur (1) 135 October (1) 35:18 off (10) 2:6 ;8:20 ;9:25; 18:4 ;20:24;29:6,11; 31:5 ;37:20 ;39:3 offer (1) 307 offered (1) 35:1 office (1) 11:13 oil (1) 1415 old (1) 37:10 once (1) 25:16 one (24) 2:8 ;4:2,10 ;6:13; 7:1 ;8:5,8 ;9:5 ;12:1; :2 ; 141523 ;16:23; 17:15,21 ;20:12,13; 26:9 ;283;29:24; 30:9 ;36:5,14,15; 4219 One's (1) 1410 online (1) 3225 only (6) 10:18;20:15 ;2525; 28:7 ;32:6,41:4 ons (2) 39:20,25 Open (1) 33:16 opened(1) 33:17 opinion (3) 2:14,23 ;24:15 opportunity (2) 26:2 ;38:17 opposed (1) 1523 option (1) 2816 order (3) 12:7 ;33:14,41:23 ordinary (1) 2715 original (1) 19:11 others (1) 124 ought (1) 2913 ourselves (2) 27:6,8 Out (26) 6:12 ;8:13 ;13:5,20; 14:3 ;19:25;21:15; 22:12;25:12 ;27:18; 30:3,14,14 ;33:18; 37:1,2,5,17;39:12; 42:6,22,25 ;433,4,5, 10 outside (2) 24:22 ;36:6 over (9) 4:20 ;7:19,20; 15:16;25:15 ;26:14; 30:5 ;40:22,41:6 overall (1) 2124 overcome (1) 135 own (5) 2:13,14,25 ;2425; 30:1 owned (1) 26 owners (5) 30:4 ;41:2023; 42:1,22 P paper (2) 18:20 ;33:9 parenthesis (1) 1614 Park (14) 2:6 ;3:2,19,23 ;5:19; HDR Meetings June 6, 2012 8:8 ;10:21,21 ;11:13; 14:12;29:13,15;32:6; 38:11 Parkview (9) 3:20 ;4:5 ;14:3; 20:22;27:1,4;31:4,18, 19 part (6) 2:4,8 ;12:5;22:8; 25:25;26:1 particular (1) 416 path (2) 29:14 ;37:17 pavement (1) 163 pavings (1) 1214 pay (5) 7:17 ;20:4;21:6; 27:16,41:2 paying (2) 42:2,2 pedestrian (1) 10:17 peninsula (3) 10:14;28:6,8 people (21) 3:25 ;4:5 ;11:4; 13:20 ;14:4,4 ;18:9; 19:25;23:25 ;24:6; 27:16;29:5,10;33:10, 20 ;35:15,16,23,25; 40:20,41:4 percent (2) 35:15,16 perhaps(1) 13:12 permeability (4) 12:13 ;39:3,7,15 permeable (1) 12:14 personal (1) 222 personally (1) 26 Peterson (2) 12:3,3 Phelps (2) 9:7 ;42:15 photographs (1) 382 photos (1) 26:11 phrase (1) 21:16 physical (1) 26:15 picture (2) 11:22 ;38:21 pig (2) 28:22,23 pigs (1) I1in -U- Script® Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. (6) mention - pigs Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 V. 2821 pile (3) 39:20,21,25 pitted (1) 85 Place (10) 3:19 ;11:13 ;17:7, 18 ;18:18 ;23:17; 26:19,23 ;37:14; 40:19 places (3) 16:25 ;17:8;21:19 plan (4) 2:16,23 ;4:16 ;29:23 planner (1) 28:17 planning (3) 4:13 ;12:24;23:18 plans (1) 11:15 plus (8) 9:17,20 ;10:17; 16:14,15;20:15; 25:11,40:6 pm (1) 43:12 point (14) 4:8 ;8:11 ;12:9; 14:3 ;18:25;21:1; 25:16;27:10,18; 28:17 ;31:24 ;40:9; 41:17,42:21 pointer (1) 36:17 points (1) 5:1 policies (1) 41:13 policy (5) 31:10 ;35:4,41:5, 16,22 pond (1) 17:19 pool (1) 221 Port (1) 36 positive (1) 3:1 possibility (2) 39:23,40:9 potential (1) 3824 poured (1) 33:18 practical (2) 29:22 ;30:16 practice (1) 32:14 practices (2) 12:15 ;39:14 prairies (1) 396 predict (1) 3322 prefer (1) 297 premiums (1) 423 presentations (1) 123 pressure (4) 37:4 ;39:23 ;40:9,14 pretty (6) 17:1,3,7 ;29:1; 35:25 ;37:23 prevent(1) 13:1 preventing (1) 39:11 previous (1) 1523 prices (1) 4224 primary (2) 4:6 ;27:7 prison (1) 291 probably (2) 12:21 ;19:23 problems (1) 12:7 proceedings (1) 2:1 process (3) 4:13 ;20:1 ;39:24 profile (1) 5:9 program (2) 34:15 ;35:9 project (11) 5:25 ;7:20 ;822; 9:2 ;19:11,13 ;2123; 25:11;28:21 ;2925; 32:12 projects (3) 8:18 ;22:15,41:9 property (12) 6:6 ;7:16,17 ;8:2,6; 25:6 ;27:18,21 ;30:3, 12 ;41:20 ;42:14 proposed (1) 424 proposing (1) 3724 protect (7) 6:13 ;11:16;24:14, 16 ;25:22,24;27:10 protected (2) 28:19 ;37:9 protecting (2) 8:14 ;30:22 protection (3) 25:8,20 ;32:2 protects (1) 2523 provide (6) 3:15 ;28:5,7,10; 32:2 ;38:9 provided (4) 5:4 ;21:9 ;34:17,19 provides (1) 21:8 providing (1) 2014 public (2) 7:10 ;31:10 puffed (1) 925 pumps (1) 4025 purchase (2) 35:7 ;42:17 purchasing (3) 27:11 ;34:14,17 purpose (1) 323 pushing (2) 18:11 ;39:24 put (10) 2:16 ;17:1924; 28:5,13,22,24,32:24; 33:23 ;40:18 puts (1) 30:19 0 qualification (1) 525 questionable (1) 4120 quick (2) 31:1 ;42:13 quickly (2) 18:25 ;30:3 quite (1) 35:14 quo (1) 22:4 IN railroads (1) 2621 rain (9) 12:6,14,19 ;39:3,7, 13 ;40:24 ;41:17,18 raise (6) 9:1 ;15:14,16 ;21:2; 34:9 ;40:17 raised (3) 15:17 ;16:11 ;28:10 raising (6) 2:18 ;14:17 ;16:2, 17 ;17:10 ;19:24 Rapids (1) 522 rate (1) 2719 read (2) 15:20;21:15 real (2) 31:1 ;42:13 realize (1) 3321 really (11) 2:13 ;4:11 ;12:1; 14:22;20:22 ;27:8; 30:16;37:7;38:10,23; 39:9 reason (2) 17:16 ;38:7 reasonable (1) 1418 reasons (1) 283 rebuilding (1) 159 recall (1) 13:14 recognize (1) 4220 recommend (1) 1321 recreating (1) 221 redistributed (1) 281 reduction (2) 15:25 ;16:1 reference (2) 21:1,11 referenced (1) 324 reflected (2) 9:21 ;30:8 regard (1) 6:21 region (2) 11:24 ;12:6 rehabbed (1) 4224 REICHART (7) 7:18 ;19:10,19; 20:25;23:3 ;41:8;43:7 relates (1) 1814 relation (1) 19:10 relative (1) 2322 relevance (1) 33:6 relevant (1) 21:13 refief (3) 28:2 ;30:8,40:13 refieve (1) 4013 relocation (1) 67 HDR Meetings June 6, 2012 remapped (1) 239 remind (2) 24:20;27:23 removal (1) 32:16 removing (1) 16:3 rented (1) 4225 repay (1) 2722 replaced (1) 1025 replacement (1) 36:10 replacing (1) 163 report (11) 5:1,15 ;6:22,23,25; 7:2,11 ;32:21,22, 34:10 ;35:1 representatives (1) 43:10 representing (1) 522 request (1) 524 requested (2) 208 ;307 require (1) 12:16 required (1) 32:10 researched (1) 69 reserve (1) 27:12 reservoir (3) 33:12,16,17 reside (1) 4222 residence (1) 42 residents (13) 5:10,17 ;6:4,11 ;7:9; 17:22;29:24;30:1,12; 34:13,16,18,22 responsibility (1) 264 rest (3) 2:19,23 ;42:10 restraints (1) 15:7 result (3) 3:2 ;12:7 ;22:16 retired (1) 27:16 revision (1) 23:8 revisions (1) 23:16 right (26) \Tin -U- Script -. Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. (7) pile - right Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 V. 6:19 ;8:18 ;9:5; 10:25 ;13:8 ;15:4; 17:14,19,22,24;18:2; 19:19;22:12 ;23:23; 24:4;36:17,17,20,25; 37:117,19 ;38:3,5,6; 42:15 right -of -way (2) 15:17,18 risen (1) 33:15 risk (2) 31:13,20 risks (3) 2:24 ;3:1 ;31:18 river (24) 2:25 ;4:12 ;5:20; 14:16;16:25;17:8,23; 20:10;21:24 ;29:16, 19 ;31:5,14 ;32:7; 33:19 ;36:16,18,19, 19,21 ;37:6,17 ;38:13, 22 rivers (1) 394 Road (26) 2:6,18 ;3:2,23,24; 6:3;8:8;10:5,5,16,20; 11:14 ;14:14,18,19; 17:10 ;19:24 ;20:20; 28:5,7,9,12,13 ;34:9; 36:18,40:18 Robert (2) 33:3 ;34:6 Rocky (1) 323 roles (1) 256 room (1) 2423 Rosenquist (1) 714 run (2) 29:14 ;39:3 running (1) 39:7 runoff (3) 11:23 ;12:8,10 rural (2) 10:9,12 Ryan (3) 12:3 ;32:19 ;35:12 S Sally (2) 14:1 ;27:3 same (6) 4:14 ;8:10 ;15:2,21; 31:14 ;33:25 sanitary (1) 164 save (1) 823 saw (1) 374 saying (2) 23:4 ;25:12 scheduling (1) 68 scoured (1) 37:17 screen (1) 3622 sealed (1) 2620 second (4) 5:14 ;8:5 ;18:15; 40:15 secondary (1) 28:6 section (3) 10:10 ;17:2 ;35:22 sections (1) 5:3 secure (1) 308 seeing (2) 25:11;29:2 seems (11) 8:2,12 ;9:4,5 ;11:20; 16:23;20:23 ;29:19; 32:15 ;38:20,20 segment (1) 34:10 sense (4) 2:12 ;16:8 ;17:9; 2124 sentiment (2) 35:13,25 separate (1) 37:11 September (3) 12:2 ;13:21 ;35:17 serious (1) 3725 serve (2) 2:17,19 serves (1) 2:15 set (2) 22:7 ;27:12 several(4) 8:22 ;11:15 ;12:17; 30:23 severely (1) 10:19 sewers (1) 164 shame (1) 2920 Simpler (1) 273 Shelly (1) 35 Shore (1) 323 shorten (1) 821 showed (1) 910 showing (2) 5:5 ;20:16 shown (1) 3:13 shows (1) 422 shrubs(1) 3612 side (9) 4:1 ;7:6 ;10:18 ;15:6, 8 ;17:19,23 ;37:6,12 sides (1) 224 sidewalk (2) 10:23 ;112 sidewalks (2) 10:16 ;36:13 sight (1) 101 silicone (1) 1016 similar (1) 38:1 simple (1) 17:1 simply (2) 2:14,23 single (1) 89 sites (2) 21:17;25:1 situation (3) 21:20,25 ;38:1 slight (1) 4219 slow (1) 1821 small (1) 38:20 social (1) 3521 soil (5) 12:13 ;36:11 ;39:2, 6,14 Solon (1) 2720 solution (1) 1220 solutions (1) 1210 somebody (2) 10:19;21:21 somehow (1) 8:15 someone (1) 30:18 somewhat (1) 215 somewhere (3) 22:2,2 ;31:6 sorry (2) 2:20 ;16:10 sort (3) 11:1 ;20:23 ;34:16 source(1) 4024 sources (1) 25:12 south (9) 4:1 ;5:6,10,23 ;6:5, 14,20 ;1723 ;38:11 sp (4) 3:6 ;20:4 ;22:18; 34:7 spacing (1) 157 speak (2) 38:17,43:9 Special (1) 63 specific (1) 610 specifically (3) 3:25 ;20:9,41:2 speed (1) 369 Speedway (22) 4:2 ;5:10,16,23 ;63, 5,11,14,15,20 ;9:8; 10:1,5 ;13:10 ;1421; 15:9,14,16 ;16:17; 19:21 ;31:17 ;36:4 spend (1) 4214 spending (5) 8:25,25 ;9:1 ;34:21, 23 spoke (3) 5:17 ;7:7 ;12:5 spot (2) 9:23,25 spouse (1) 29 stability (1) 30:15 staff (1) 429 standard (2) 10:6 ;32:13 standing (1) 15:12 standpoint (1) 57 start (1) 162 state (6) 7:16 ;12:4 ;19:8,18; 25:21;28:1 stated (2) 13:14,41:2 state's (1) HDR Meetings June 6, 2012 2:9 status (1) 224 stay (1) 2421 stepchild (1) 275 sticking (1) 18:19 stilt (9) 2:20 ;21:8,10,10; 22:4 ;28:23 ;33:8; 39:23,40:8 stood (3) 30:6 ;37:11,13 stop (1) 8:18 stopped (1) 6:18 store (1) 3524 storm (1) 2320 straight (8) 8:19 ;17:6 ;36:19, 20,23,25 ;38:7,8 stream (1) 2125 streams (1) 33:19 Street (5) 8:11 ;13:10;28:13; 29:5,6 strikes (2) 8:13,16 strong (1) 19:1 structural (1) 15:13 structure (1) 30:18 structures (2) 23:6,10 stuck (1) 411 studied (1) 207 study (3) 20:8,11 ;22:8 stuff (2) 723 ;23:18 submit (1) 415 summary (1) 54 support (2) 30:1 ;39:12 supporting (1) 314 sure (3) 11:17;22:3 ;30:21 surface (3) 4:23 ;5:9,12 Min -U- Script Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C.(8) right -of -way - surface Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 V. surprise (1) 31:14 survey (2) 9:23 ;35:23 suspect(1) 823 sustainable (4) 12:11,19,25 ;39:13 swimming (1) 221 T table (1) 429 Taft (25) 4:2 ;5:10,11,16,23; 6:315,10,14,1520; 9:8 ;10:1,5 ;13:10; 14:21 ;15:8,9,14,16; 16:2,5;19:21;31:17; 364 tag (1) 434 tagged (1) 32:15 talk (1) 2122 talking (6) 14:6 ;15:11 ;18:1, 22 ;24:6 ;29:20 tall (1) 411 tax (8) 7:16,17 ;8:2,6 ;25:6; 27:19,22,24 taxpayer(1) 27:15 Taylor (1) 521 temporary (1) 12:22 tenth (1) 22:1 terms (2) 21:22;29:12 Terrace (9) 3:20 ;4:5 ;14:3; 20:22;27:1,4;31:5,18, 19 Terri (1) 2424 Terry (1) 273 Thanks (1) 39:17 therefore (1) 21:3 thereof(1) 29:17 thinking (1) 2:18 though (1) 303 thought (2) 15:25;28:3 three (7) 14:10;23:10 ;25:1, 7;26:12,13 ;33:24 throughout (3) 12:18,18 ;38:22 Thursday (1) 5:18 tier (1) 11:19 timeline (1) 13:11 told (1) 2222 tonight (7) 6:24 ;293 ;313; 32:5;35:16 ;42:7;43:5 took (1) 3523 top (3) 16:15;28:5,41:6 topic (1) 2024 tore (1) 37:10 total (4) 7:21 ;8:21 ;40:12,13 to -wit (1) 2:2 traffic (1) 1017 trail (1) 1023 trailer (1) 1412 transcripts (1) 309 trapped (1) 1420 traveled (1) 1020 treatments (1) 3216 trees (1) 3612 true (1) 305 Try (2) 14:6 ;24:21 trying (1) 15:10 turbulence (1) 369 turn (2) 30:14,14 turns (1) 3622 T -wall (2) 39:22,40:12 twelve (1) 25:1 two (6) 4:20 ;5:1 ;16:6; 34:19 ;38:18 ;4123 two -lane (1) 10:9 Typically (1) 2621 U uncomfortable (1) 84 under (2) 22:11 ;34:19 underneath (1) 164 understood (1) 1211 undivided (1) 302 university (2) 12:4 ;13:20 Unless (1) 2616 unpopular (1) 275 unrelated (1) 1622 unwanted (2) 12:8,10 up (20) 3:13 ;5:18 ;8:19; 13:17 ;14:6,12,19; 18:19;22:7;25:4; 26:20;27:12 ;30:6; 31:1 ;33:8,13 ;40:23 41:3,18 ;43:6 upon (2) 3:22 ;18:11 upstream (2) 3:24 ;4:24 urban/rural (1) 1010 use (7) 8:1 ;19:16;20:25; 21:4,10 ;2725 ;40:8 used (4) 25:17;2722 ;38:9; 399 using (2) 3921,22 usually(1) 2623 utilities (1) 67 Utility (1) 78 V vacations (1) 1320 valley (3) 17:2,12 ;38:23 value (1) 8:15 values (1) 66 variance (1) 112 various (1) 398 view (1) 3223 visible (3) 31:15,16,18 visit (2) 24:8 ;29:5 W waiting (1) 222 walk (3) 11:4 ;29:14 ;31:19 walking (3) 24:11 ;31:16 ;35:23 wall (35) 4:11 ;6:19 ;9:11,14, 15,19 ;10:3,17 ;15:8, 11,15,19,20,23,24,24, 25 ;17:19,24 ;18:10; 2610;28:24,25;29:8, 16 ;30:17,21 ;36:24; 40:4,5,7,7,8,11,22 Wallace (1) 2218 walls (4) 15:12;26:22 ;2822; 40:13 Wally (1) 5:21 wants (7) 36:19,19,22 ;38:6,7, 8,14 water (29) 3:9 ;4:23 ;5:9,12; 6:18 ;11:23 ;12:6,6,8, 10,11,19 ;14:13; 18:17,21,24 ;33:13, 15,18 ;36:8 ;37:14; 38:9,10 ;39:3,7,13; 40:23 ;41:17,18 water's (2) 17:3 ;31:6 way (13) 2:17 ;5:3 ;8:11,13; 10:14 ;17:17 ;1823; 22:5,9 ;37:13;39:1; 40:19,41:4 ways (2) 2:8 ;14:10 web (1) 426 website (1) 73 HDR Meetings June 6, 2012 week (2) 31:3 ;32:5 weren't (1) 421 west (1) 14:15 what's (6) 4:1 ;6:17 ;22:12; 28:17 ;37:21 ;38:22 Whereupon (1) 21 White (1) 364 whole (6) 4:9 ;11:24 ;17:4; 20:1 ;27:9,30:2 who's (3) 23:13 ;30:20 ;39:10 wide (2) 33:18 ;37:18 Wilcox (3) 13:9 ;19:21 ;35:14 William (1) 123 willing (1) 31:12 winning (1) 5:25 withdrawn (1) 307 within (5) 15:16,18 ;24:10; 26:23,41:22 without (1) 11:19 withstand (1) 373 Withstanding (1) 35:3 woman (1) 5:17 wondered (1) 21:13 wondering (2) 8:8 ;18:22 woodlands (1) 39:6 woods (1) 399 words (1) 3623 working (1) 4214 works (2) 20:2 ;40:20 workshop (1) 121 worse (1) 2120 wrap (1) 436 wrong (3) 4:15 ;30:14,14 Min -U- Scripts. Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. (9) surprise - wrong Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 V. Y yard (3) 36:8,10,11 yards (1) 822 year (6) 3:13 ;13:18 ;16:14, 15 ;32:3 ;40:6 years (6) 7:23 ;24:13;25:15; 39:519,42:14 yelled (1) 33:16 YouTube (1) 374 Z zone (4) 41:9,10,11,12 0 08(l) 194 1 1 (1) 236 10 (8) 15:21,23 ;37:12; 39:22 ;402,4,7,11 100 (4) 16:14,15 ;323;40:6 100 -foot (1) 38 100th (1) 5:11 100- year(13) 3:12,15 ;9:12; 22:20,24 ;23:1,7,11, 20;28:16;31:24;32:1; 33:6 10 -foot (1) 37:16 115(l) 98 11 -foot (1) 102 121(1) 364 13(l) 1521 13B (1) 1524 1438(l) 346 16 -foot (3) 4:11 ;8:21;10:17 1947(l) 25 1969(l) 27 1990 (1) 37:13 1993 (2) 37:10,13 2.5(1) 41:18 20 (2) 24:18;25:15 2005(l) 2221 2007(l) 238 2008(12) 3:10,11,14 ;11:20, 22 ;12:23 ;22:23; 25:14;28:2,19 ;33:8; 342 2009(l) 122 2010(l) 2818 22 (4) 10:14 ;11:9 ;33:4,8 22 -foot (1) 1016 23(l) 2419 240(l) 1411 25(l) 1014 28 (2) 10:13 ;11:8 2A (1) 348 2B (3) 9:4,4,40:17 3 (14) 9:16,17,20 ;15:17, 22 ;16:11,11,15,15, 17;25:12;26:23;32:2; 37:15 30 -feet (1) 37:18 323(l) 714 370(l) 36 3 -feet (1) 407 4 (1) 39 400 (2) 39:5,9 45(l) 2218 5 500 (2) 3:24 ;25:11 500- year(8) 3:14 ;9:10,13,16,19, 20,22 ;32:1 5 -year (1) 11:17 649(l) 10:2 651(1) 925 652(l) 925 654(l) 3:13 655(l) 3:12 660(l) 922 8:02 (1) 43:12 816(l) 88 84(l) 33:11 845(l) 1622 890(l) 3:19 8 -feet (1) 37:18 6 8 9 92 (6) 14:4,4;24:14 ;25:8; 42:20,22 99 (1) 35:16 99.9(1) 35:15 9A (4) 15:1,5,5 ;16:12 9B (2) 15:1 ;16:12 BDR Meetings June 6, 2012 Min -U- Script-. Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters & Certified Legal Video, L.L.C. (10) yard - 9B Phone(402)556 -5000 Fax(402)556 -2037 APPENDIX H: MEETING MATERIALS FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS NO. 2 AND 3 PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Welcome! The purpose of today's open house is to discuss the Taft Speedway Flood Miti( Study and present information on the screened alternatives. Stations for each alternative have been created to allow the public to view information about the various screened alternatives and discuss the study with project representatives. Screened Alternatives Following our initial public meeting in the fall of 2011, a list of preliminary flood mitigation alternatives was developed and a preliminary screening completed based on the alternative feasibility and ability to meet flood mitigation goals. From this preliminary screening, seven screened alternatives were evaluated. Alternative 2B - Foster Road Raise (500 -Year Plus 1 Foot): Raise Foster Road to provide access to the Peninsula area in the event of high Iowa River elevations; no flood damage mitigation benefits. • Alternative 7 - Levee (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet): Earthen levee providing flood mitigation for Idyllwild Neighborhood and Parkview Church. • Alternative 8 -Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet): Floodwall providing flood mitigation for Idyllwild Neighborhood and Parkview Church; floodwall required for this level of protection because of extensive levee footprint at this design elevation. • Alternative 9A - Levee /Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet): Combination of levee with a floodwall along Taft Speedway where right -of -way is constrained. Provides access to the Peninsula neighborhood and flood mitigation for Idyllwild Neighborhood and Parkview Church. • Alternative 9B - Levee /Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet with Taft Speedway Raise): Provides same flood mitigation as Alternative 9A, with Taft Speedway raised within right -of -way to shorten required wall height. • Alternative 9C - Levee /Flood Wall (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet): Same as alternative 9A, constructed to the 100 -year plus 3 feet level. • Alternative 9D - Levee /Flood Wall (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet with Taft Speedway Raise): Same as alternative 913, constructed to the 100 -year plus 3 feet level. Seethe individual fact sheets attached for a summary of each screened alternative, with a figure illustrating the key elements of each alternative. We Want Your Input! • Stop and ask questions at the stations at today's public open house Visit us at www.icgov.org and click on Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study (under the "What's Happening" heading) to submit comments Attend the next public meeting, scheduled for June 6, 2012 from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm. Formal presentation at 6:15 pm, followed by questions and answers. r M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Grvof IOIXACI v PP P PPS O U U a a W W a N a as Nndw3i ++ a _ w 03AV 1lOH VI Ga3wVNON r 3AVNOaH3a C m L J_ G O PPR P P v —> NoRMPNGY D 0 v _0 D m b0 R> GRANADA °� LL Z ap v w O O p A ON Z �R 3 VA `/ 6 ^V b Cl) O w O bON Y STVJ Y � v 0 o o v o O - u �o � a Y J 0 m ON a LL z O 3 Alternative 2B - Foster Road Raise (500 -Year Plus 1 Foot) Project Description Raise Foster Road to provide access to the Peninsula area in the event of high Iowa River elevations; no flood damage mitigation benefits. Level of Protection 500 -year (0.2% annual exceedance) plus 1 ft of freeboard; approximate elevation 658.0 ft Project Elements • Raise 1,500 ft of Foster Road -maximum raise of approximately 8 ft above current grade Remove and replace 4,800 ft of 3 water mains along Foster Road Reconstruct 31 -ft wide urban section of Foster Road on top of raised embankment • Reconstruct intersections at No Name Road, Idyllwild Drive, and entrance to Parkview Church Reconstruct sidewalk on south side of Foster Road Impacts • Access roads to Idyllwild and Parkview Church -grades increased to no greater than 8% One acre easement required • Obstructed views by elevated Foster Road embankment Hydraulic Impacts 'Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry Intersection Rocky Shore Drive /Park Road 500 ft upstream of No Name Road Flood Event (Year) Its of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 500 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 'Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry a JK - - -- LLy` 0 0 W >pa Qo� w zWw Of W > ~ U) J O O Q W LO W! Ln K m I III z m � � �w . _r � III n� t i 3 111 - ' - - -I% r �_ O .P 5, 00 o0 z OP \ \ V . t 1 1,11' o 0 LL ca s, � � � ��' .;1,1111 � �' � W o� 1 \r--- t,v A7 , r %E��y IfC � �� ( T 40 IF" Alternative 7 - Levee (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet) Project Description Earthen levee providing flood mitigation for Idyllwild Neighborhood and Parkview Church. Level of Protection 100 -year (1.0% annual exceedance) plus 3 ft of freeboard; approximate elevation 654.0 ft Project Elements Construct 3,800 ft of levee -maximum height of approximately 8.5 ft above current grade of Taft Speedway • Reconstruct rural section of No Name Road and Taft Speedway on top of raised embankment Remove and replace 1,300 ft of sanitary sewer along Taft Speedway • Remove and replace 3,400 ft of water main under No Name Road and Taft Speedway Reconstruct 9 Taft Speedway access points, 3 Parkview Church access points, and one Idyllwild access point Construct stormwater pump station system Impacts • Access roads to Idyllwild, Parkview Church, and Taft Speedway residents -grades of 10 -13% Two acres of easement required Obstructed views to the north for Taft Speedway residents; obstructed river views to south and east for Idyllwild residents Hydraulic Impacts ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry Intersection Rocky Shore Drive /Park Road 500 ft upstream of No Name Road Flood Event (Year) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 500 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry "' w � w LL i U) w IL a �L� QLU CD 1 ------------ l jut WOO 6 e i I I LL 7 o �� z it owl , a �°2� �oo2 ¢�� atia 11'' x i LI Q w � A� .4 Z wz d r � O � 1 z__ ��r i✓ J( o w 0 > r, wi 00 }r - � �' f,�� NAME � 0 0 Alternative 8 - Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) Project Description Floodwall providing flood mitigation for Idyllwild Neighborhood and Parkview Church; floodwall required for this level of protection because of extensive levee footprint at this design elevation. Level of Protection 500 -year (0.2% annual exceedance) plus 3 ft of freeboard; approximate elevation 660.0 ft Project Elements Construct 3,800 ft of concrete flood wall - height varies from 10 to 16 ft above current grade along Taft Speedway Remove and replace of 100 ft of sanitary sewer crossing flood wall and Taft Speedway Remove and replace of 80 ft of storm sewer crossing flood wall and Taft Speedway • Remove and replace of 1,300 ft of sanitary sewer along Taft Speedway • Remove and replace of 2,730 ft of water main under Taft Speedway • Modify 3 Parkview Church access points and one Idyllwild access point for flood gates Construct stormwater pump station system Impacts • Modifications to access roads for Idyllwild and Parkview Church to include flood gates • One acre of easement required Obstructed views to the north for Taft Speedway residents; obstructed river views to south and east for Idyllwild residents Hydraulic Impacts ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry Intersection Rocky Shore Drive /Park Road 500 ft upstream of No Name Road Flood Event (Year) ImpactsofAlternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) ImpactsofAlternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 500 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry LU ILL .� /.�� % :/ • CJ LU �Jd °O LU Lu Luor P� .I r ,I III J= JU II I E� O s' O J II ._r J= m TIM �w LL -, I ` M I � I' OWO 3 1/1 v ✓' \� .� � � III � � Y - I ills, o O 1p Ora OJ F �1 qo rlb .Z �l J ui Alternative 9A - Levee /Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) Project Description Combination of levee with a floodwalI along Taft Speedway where right -of -way is constrained. Provides access to the Peninsula neighborhood and flood mitigation for Idyllwild Neighborhood and Parkview Church. Level of Protection 500 -year (0.2% annual exceedance) plus 3 ft of freeboard; approximate elevation 660.0 ft Project Elements Construct 1,900 ft of levee - maximum height of approximately 16 ft above current grade of Taft Speedway • Construct 2,300 ft of concrete flood wall - height varies from 10 to 14 ft along Taft Speedway • Reconstruct rural section of No Name Road and Taft Speedway on top of raised embankment • Remove and replace of 1,900 ft of sanitary sewer along No Name Road and Taft Speedway • Remove and replace of 80 ft of storm sewer crossing flood wall and Taft Speedway • Remove and replace of 3,400 ft of water main under No Name Road and Taft Speedway • Reconstruct one Idyllwild access point • Modify 3 Parkview Church access points for flood gates • Construct stormwater pump station system Impacts • Modifications to access roads for Parkview Church to include floodgates; impact to east Idyllwild access • One acre of easement required Obstructed views to the north for Taft Speedway residents, obstructed river views to south and east for Idyllwild residents Hydraulic Impacts ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry Intersection Rocky Shore Drive /Park Road 500 ft upstream of No Name Road Flood Event (Year) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 500 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry JW LL l� rn0u) �� j MCIi iP >OEL (DEL LL UJ CD QJLO II �ex— Sn I1j1 W S y i I f I l i d j T �,y 1 111 o I �I LL "h A �f 0 i��. i y S ��'A i� 1 tK� }I�' 'IM-_ �`� �.> 1 e/' -t� .6 ,flr --J� l0 9 % ¢tWJ h N, pW , 10 Y I I� mil � � f'YOQQi� H Im u�io a f tiff 002 O � ' I I �� 1 �iA/� � far a� /__ � 1'• }- - -- 1% ` � o � Jar 0z � f¢W ui — I f ✓� 1 6 �L � L'� � I L I�--C7 1 w w w w O O O O o o o o � � °� SO CD Alternative 9B - Levee /Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet with Taft Speedway Raise) Project Description Provides same flood mitigation as Alternative 9A, shorten required wall height. with Taft Speedway raised within right -of -way to Level of Protection 500 -year (0.2% annual exceedance) plus 3 ft of freeboard; approximate elevation 660.0 ft Project Elements Construct 1,900 ft of levee - maximum height of approximately 16 ft above current grade of Taft Speedway Construct 2,300 ft of concrete flood wall - height varies from 7.5 to 11 ft above proposed grade of Taft Speedway Reconstruct rural section of No Name Road and Taft Speedway on top of raised embankment Raise western 2/3 of Taft Speedway profile 2 to 4 ft, and reconstruct roadway • Replace 1,900 ft of sanitary sewer along No Name Road and crossing of Taft Speedway • Remove and replace 80 ft of storm sewer crossing flood wall and Taft Speedway • Remove and replace 3,400 ft of water main under No Name Road and Taft Speedway • Construct stormwater pump station system Impacts • Access roads to Taft Speedway Residents -maximum grades of 5 to 7% • Modifications to access roads for Parkview Church to include floodgates; impact to east Idyllwild access • One acre of easement required Obstructed views to the north forTaft Speedway residents; obstructed river views to south and east for Idyllwild residents Hydraulic Impacts 'Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry Intersection Rocky Shore Drive /Park Road 500 ft upstream of No Name Road Flood Event (Year) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 500 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 'Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry a N 10 3 a a CL tA w s 3 a a LL M N 7 a 0 0 Ln Alternative 9C- Levee /Flood Wall (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet) Project Description Same as alternative 9A, constructed to the 100 -year plus 3 feet level. Level of Protection 100 -year (0.2% annual exceedance) plus 3 ft of freeboard; approximate elevation 654.0 ft Project Elements Construct 1,900 ft of levee -maximum height of approximately 8.5 ft above current grade of Taft Speedway • Construct 2,300 ft of concrete flood wall -height varies from 4 to 8 ft along Taft Speedway • Reconstruct rural section of No Name Road and Taft Speedway on top of raised embankment Remove and replace 100 ft of sanitary sewer crossing flood wall and Taft Speedway Remove and replace 80 ft of storm sewer crossing flood wall and Taft Speedway Remove and replace 3,400 ft of water main under No Name Road and Taft Speedway Reconstruct one Idyllwild access point Modify 3 Parkview Church access points for flood gates • Construct stormwater pump station system Impacts • Modifications to access roads for Parkview Church to include floodgates; impact to east Idyllwild access • One acre of easement required • Obstructed views to the north for Taft Speedway residents; obstructed river views to south and east for Idyllwild residents Hydraulic Impacts ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry Intersection Rocky Shore Drive /Park Road 500 ft upstream of No Name Road Flood Event (Year) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 500 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry Qt i o� I� I \a I o I II 2 j I ' �L °o IJ � of I 1 If d+ r 14 c LL ---- i JS im I �r ri � I 1' 11 Ill w pp � � S W Z J � W Li - a o w r a Jw w I Q LL / � 1 w w w w 1r O + LU 0 ww r < J LL \ Z�Q Z / .>•_ v A �- Lu LL W W /// la h r W (� y 1 a — : r � � I i � 11 jJy A im I �r ri � I 1' 11 Ill w pp � � S W Z J � W .r a o w r a t 1 O O O O w w w w 1r O i a a a a I J�a - la im I �r ri � I 1' 11 Ill w pp � � S W Z J � W Y a o 3 a o w r a o J o N 1 O O O O w w w w 1r O i a a a a Alternative 9D- Levee /Flood Wall (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet With Taft Speedway Raise) Project Description Same as alternative 913, constructed to the 100 -year plus 3 feet level. Level of Protection 100 -year (0.2% annual exceedance) plus 3 ft of freeboard; approximate elevation 654.0 ft Project Elements Construct 1,900 ft of levee -maximum height of approximately 8.5 ft above current grade of Taft Speedway • Construct 2,300 ft of concrete flood wall -height varies from 1.5 to 5 ft above proposed grade of Taft Speedway • Reconstruct rural section of No Name Road and Taft Speedway on top of raised embankment • Raise western 2/3 of Taft Speedway profile 2 to 4 ft, reconstruct roadway • Replace 100 ft of sanitary sewer crossing of Taft Speedway • Remove and replace 80 ft of storm sewer crossing flood wall and Taft Speedway • Remove and replace 3,400 ft of water main under No Name Road and Taft Speedway • Construct stormwater pump station system Impacts • Access roads to Taft Speedway Residents -maximum grades of 5 -8% • Modifications to access roads for Parkview Church to include floodgates; impact to east Idyllwild access • One acre of easement required • Obstructed views to the north for Taft Speedway residents; obstructed river views to south and east for Idyllwild residents Hydraulic Impacts ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry Intersection Rocky Shore Drive /Park Road 500 ft upstream of No Name Road Flood Event (Year) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) Impacts of Alternative Alone' (ft) Impacts of Alternative With Park Road and Dubuque Street Improvements' (ft) 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 500 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 ' Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions withal I constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (except Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. 2 Water surface elevation impacts based on comparisons to Iowa River hydraulic conditions with all constructed, under - construction, designed, or planned improvements (including Park Road and Dubuque Street improvements) in place. Note: Hydraulic modeling provided by Howard R. Green Company under contract to the City of Iowa City. M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r Gry of lomsa Gry R 3 a a CL tA r LL M N 7 a 0 0 0 0 LL w\ wW, W N J a Z 10 Y 1 a l I s; f I b b 9 �i I J Gw � i �, co wwS II �f 1A�x r;\ III w z p � w LU Z Q LL a LU J w Q 4 - " ¢L 0 1 � rn W WOM zoam 0000 <L LL i LU W W 2 V J Lu 0 LU CDd I I LL I I _ e �= I QQ0 CL�/S l i - -F II �f 1A�x r;\ III w z p � w o Y Z Q LL w � 0000� 0000 d d d a a a a 0 LU CDd I I LL Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Summary of Cost Development As part of the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study, opinions of probable :onstruction cost were developed for the seven alternatives developed from the Initial ternatives Screening. These seven alternatives include the following: 1. Alternative 213: Raise Foster Road (500 -Year + 1 Foot) 2. Alternative 7: Levee (100 -Year + 3 Feet) 3. Alternative 8: Floodwall (500 -Year+ 3 Feet) 4. Alternative 9A: Levee /Floodwall Combination (500 -Year + 3 Feet) 5. Alternative 913: Levee /Floodwall Combination Plus Taft Speedway Raise (500 -Year + 3 Feet) 6. Alternative 9C: Levee /Floodwall Combination (100 -Year + 3 Feet) 7. Alternative 9D: Levee /Floodwall Combination Plus Taft Speedway Raise (100 -Year + 3 Feet) The opinion of probable construction cost was developed based upon the following information: • The unit costs were estimated based upon recent construction bid tabulations from Iowa City, coordination with vendors, and coordination with Iowa City. • A basemap of the improvements for each proposed alternative was created and used to estimate project quantities and impacts. The basemap utilized 2006 LiDAR data provided by Iowa City. The extent of the levee footprints, together with the parcel boundaries obtained from Iowa City, were utilized to estimate temporary and permanent easement requirements. Typical easement costs provided by the City were used in the cost opinions. These include a 10% assessed land value per year for temporary easements and 100% assessed land value for permanent easements. The location of existing utilities was estimated from information provided by Iowa City and through cursory field reconnaissance. No potholing or survey was conducted to confirm the horizontal or vertical locations. These locations, together with the proposed alternative basemaps, were utilized to estimate utility impacts in the form of depth of cover, anticipated construction - related impact to utility lines, and permanent feature impacts. Proposed improvements were developed in accordance with Iowa City design standards and general engineering industry standards. These costs are based upon a preliminary level of assessment. If design moves forward, additional details may affect final design cost. The 25% contingencies applied to each cost opinion accounts for the level of uncertainty at this level of design. Standard 8% of the improvement costs were utilized to estimate mobilization and engineering design fee. r M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study Grvof IOIXACI v Alternative 2B - Foster Road Raise (500 -Year Plus 1 Foot) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of lava City Date 5-Jun -12 Project: Taft SDezdway Flood Study Estimator TRM� Task Checked By Task No. Check Dates HDR Engineering Inc Alternate 213: Foster Road to 500 Year + 1' Pavement & Utilities Construction Quantity Unit Price Total _ J& Comme[ds'Source Unit (81,unit ) Removals Easanmts $ 200,000 Contingencies(259A) $ Pavement Re no✓al 5,390 SY $ 5.00 $ 26,950 1,485 LF Foster Road 9dewak Removal 640 SY $ 4.00 $ 2,560 South adeaf Foster arip & awk0leTopsoil 560 CY $ 2.00 $ 1,120 4" Rerno✓e Curb Inlets 20 EA $ 750 $ 15,000 Rerno✓e &Relocate/R Iae Trees 30 EA $ 1,000 $ 30,000 South a deaf Foster EartlWark Earthwork (Embarkment) 23,760 CY $ 6.50 $ 154,440 30%m actionfator Respread Topsoi l 450 CY $ 2.00 $ 900 Pavement & Utility Construction Construct Curb Inlets 20 EA $ 2,500 $ 50,000 Construct 8" FCC Pavement (Foster Road) 5,190 SY $ 35.00 $ 181,650 31' Urban Section, 1,485 LF Construct 7" FCC Pavement (Parking Lot & Driveways) 670 SY $ 35.00 $ 23,450 Idy11wi1d and Pakview Church entrance Construct 6 "FCC 9demalk 1,190 SY $ 31.50 $ 37,490 - 8'widetrail Construct Culvert LF $ Rase Ex. Fire Hydrant 3 EA $ 8,000 $ 24,000 2 @No Name, 1 @I:�Ilwild Construct 8" Water Line 1,580 LF $ 109 $ 172,220 along Foster Road gatevaves, fittings Construct 16" Water Line 1,580 LF $ 283 $ 447,140 along Foster Road gatevaves, fittings Construct 30" Water Line 1,580 LF $ 372 $ 587,760 along Foster Road butter fly vaves, fittings Miscellaneous Qvaheed Power Relocation 1 LS $ 35,000 $ 35,000 7 Pd es to be rernoved &rel ocated Traffic Control 1 LS $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Erosion Control (91t Fence) 1,340 LF $ 2.25 $ 3,015 Demataing 1 LS I $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Sevin 1 AC $ 4,500 $ 4,650 Rerno✓e &R Iae Landon 'n EntranceMonumaRs 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Easanmts (Ternporary and ParnznaR 43,560 SF $ 2.75 $ 119,790 Ilwild Mobilization (89A) 1 LS $ 148,870 $ 148,870 Contingencies 259A 1 LS $ 465,220 $ 465,220 Engineering 89A 1 LS $ 148,870 $ 148,870 Total Construction Cost $ 2,743,595 Opinion or Probable Construction Cost Summary Description Earthwork, Rerno✓as, & Miscellaneous $ Total 500,000 Pavement & Utilities Construction $ 1,600,000 Le✓edFloodwall Construction $ Iormwata Punp Station $ Easanmts $ 200,000 Contingencies(259A) $ 500,000 Engineering (89A) $ 200,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 3,000,000 'CDBG grant contribution frompre✓ioudyapp-ovedprojafi application is $8,011,8017 FDJ Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study nr 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry Alternative 7 - Levee (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of Iowa City Date 5- Jun -12 Project: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRM Task Checked By 1 �J Tack No. Check Dates HDR E,i -ing Inc. Alternate 7: 100- Year+3' Levee Pavement & Utilities Constmotion QuaMit Unit Price Total $ CammenslSmrce. Unit Stun[ Rel ovals Conlin encies 25% $ 1400,000 End neeri n 8% $ Pavement Remova 11.310 SY $ 5.00 $ 56.550 No Name Rd. & Tat Soeedway 9d.Ak Removal 350 SY $ 4.00 $ 1400 Dubuque 9. hall Remove Driveway Culvet 4 EA $ 250 $ 1,000 Strip &Stockpile Topsoil 2,690 CY $ 2.00 $ 5,380 4" Levee FoolriMD .cadim 28,000 CY $ 4.00 $ 112,0003 ovafoolrint offill Remove Sanitary Serra 1,260 LF $ 5.00 $ 6,300 Tat Speec%vay crom ing & lineal Remove Sanitary Sever Manhole 5 EA $ 500 $ 2,500 Remove Sorm Sever Manhole'Arealnla 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Remove Storm Sever 80 LF 5.00 400 V Remove& Relocate'Replar.Exi1ingTrees 10 EA $ 1,000 $ 10,000 Trees north of Tat em of church L.Earthwak Ealtwork mbankment 98,870 CY $ 5.50 $ 641,355 30% comi,actionfector Resprearl Topsoil 2,150 CY $ 2.00 $ 4,300 Relief Wells 16 EA $ 30,000 $ 480,000 relief well plus pump test Toe Dran 2,440 LF $ 18.00 $ 43,920 Toe can for levee outstde of relief well am Pavarelt & Utility Construction Construct Sanitary S erwl Bedding 1,260 LF $ 60.00 $ 76,600 Taft Speodvay cromi no & lineal Construct Sol Sever Manhole 5 FA $ 3,500 $ 17,500 Consruc19orm Sear Malhole�Area l nid 2 EA $ 2,750 $ 5,500 Furnish &Irelal Sluice Gas 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Construct Storm Sewer w/ Bedding 80 LF $ 90.00 $ 7,200 V Construct Storm Sena w/ Bedding 110 1 LF 1 $ 90.00 $ 9,900 Across Tan Within DnbuueR -of-w Construct Sanitary Sena wl Bedding 1,330 LF 60.00 79,800 South of Tat Speedway Construct Sanitary Sever Manhole 4 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 15.520 South of Tat Speedway Construct 8" PCC Pavement Taft 8,600 EY $ 35.00 $ 301,000 rural section Construct 7 "PCC Pavement Pakin Lot &Drivev s 1,780 EY $ 35.00 $ 62,300 5 %sto eondrivev s Construct 6 "PCC Sd.dk 330 EY $ 3150 $ 10,400 9%videtral Construct Drivemay Culvert 4, 160 LF $ 80.00 $ 12,800 30' eel. Rase Ex. Fire H drat 5 FA $ 8,000 $ 40,000 Construct 12"Wae Line 670 LF $ 197 $ 131,990 iAlonq No Name Road Construct 12" Water Line 2,730 LF $ 190 $ 518,700 A I ong Tat Speeow Construct 6 " Woe Line 430 LF $ 88.00 $ 37.840 North of Tat Speedway Conarud 12' Wae Line 1,330 LF $ 190 $ 252,700 South of Taft SpeedmN Miscellaneous Cbrheal Power Relocation 1 LS $ 125,000 $ 125,000 22 Tat +3 Mane Polesto be rased 9ormwae Pumping Suruclurew/ Pump &Gull& 1 LS $2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Eroson Control Silt Fence 7,090 LF $ 2.25 $ 15,960 Devaein 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50.000 See,in 5 AC $ 4500 $ 22,500 Eaumens(Temporary and Permanent 63,160 SF $ 2.24 1 $ 141,290 Ildyllwild Mobilization is% 1 LS $ 438,550 6 $ 438,50 Conlin encies 25% 1 LS $1,370,460 $ 1,370,460 En Inealin 8 %) 1 LS $ 438,550 1 $ 438,550 Total Construction Cost 1 $ 7,870,665 Dolman of ProbableCmaruelim Col Summary Demri tim Removas& Miscellaneous $ Total $ 900,000 Pavement & Utilities Constmotion $ 1,600,000 LeveaFloc&eil Condrudion 9ormwaa Pump Station $ $ 1,200,000 2,300,000 Easements $ 200.000 Conlin encies 25% $ 1400,000 End neeri n 8% $ 600,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 8,100,000 CDBG 91 contribution frompreriwr9y Morovedprojet application is$8,011,800 MI, Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study nr 3 M Gry or lomsa Gry Alternative 8 - Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of lava Qty Date 5-Jin -12 Project: Taft EDeedNay Flood Study Estimator TRM 1 Task Checked By L q Task No. Check Dates HDR Engmairg, Inc Alternate 8: 500 -Year + 3' Floodwall escription Quantity Unit Rice Total $ QDrnfrants'$1]I.Yce. Unit $ unit Ranovals Eassnnts $ 100,000 Contingencies(259A) $ Pa✓err�mt Removal 190 SY $ 5.00 $ 950 Floodrvall crossing of driveways 9devak Remova SY $ Renove Driveway Culvert EA $ - East church entrance, leavein Jam Sri &3ock'Ie To it CY $ - 4" RennweSaritarySwer 67 LF $ 5.00 $ 400 Taft Speedway crossing RernweSaritary Server Maihde 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Renove Storm Server 67 LF $ 5.00 $ 400 V Rernwe& Relocate/Replam Existing Tress 10 EA $ 1,000 $ 10,000 Tress north of Taft east of church Floodwall Floodvall 1 LS $ 5,721,030 $ 5,721,030 par Floodwal Cost Est. Flood Cates 4 EA $ 225,000 $ 900,000 Pavement & Utility Construction Construct Santa Server w/ Bedding 1,260 LF $ 60.00 $ 75,600 Taft Speedway crossing Construct Saritary Server Maihde 2 EA $ 3,500 $ 7,000 Furnish& Instal 9uice GEte 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Construct 9orm Server w/ Bedding 67 LF $ 90.00 $ 7,200 V Construct 9orm Server w/ Bedding 110 LF $ 90.00 $ 9,900 Across Taft Within Dubuque Right-of-way Construct Santa Server w/ Bedding 1,330 LF $ 60.00 $ 79,870 South of Taft SpeedNay Construct Saritary Server Maihde 4 EA $ 3,500 $ 15,520 South of Taft SpeedNay Construct 8" PCC Pmenmt (Taft 67 SY $ 35.00 $ 2,100 Construct 7" PCC Pmenmt (parking Lot & Driveways) 190 SY $ 50.00 $ 9,500 @ Floodgates Construct 6" PCC 9devak SY $ - 8'widetral Construct 12" Water Line 2730 LF $ 190 $ 518700 Alona Taft Speedway Construct 12" Water Line 1,330 LF $ 190 $ 252,700 South of Taft SpeedNay Miscellaneous 9ormrvata Pumping 9ructurew /Pum &Outlet 1 LS $2300000 $ Z300,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Eroson Control 91t Fence 4,000 LF $ 2.25 $ 9,000 Devetain 1 LS $ 50000 $ 50,000 Seeding 1 AC $ 4,500 $ 4,500 Eamrnnts (Ternporary and Per naiet 19,600 SF $ 2.75 $ 53,900 ldyllwild Mobilization Bh 1 LS $ 799,910 $ 799,910 Contin mci n 25% 1 LS $ 2,499,700 $ 2499,700 Emm�eain 8h 1 LS $ 799,910 $ 799,910 Total Construction Cost $ 14,152,220 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 8ummary -escrliption Renwals &Mixalaieous $ Total $ 900,000 Pmenmt& Utilities Construction $ 1,000,000 LeveaFlOodwal Construction $ 6,700,000 9ormrvata Pump 3etion $ 2300,000 Eassnnts $ 100,000 Contingencies(259A) $ 2,500,000 En 'neain Bh $ 800,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 14,300,000 CDBGgrartcarfribitionfra pre iwdyapprovedpged application is$8,011,800 M1 Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study �r 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry Alternative 9A - Levee /Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Taft Speedway, Iowa Cit Client: City of Iova City Date 5-Juni2 Project: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRM M Task Checked By 1 L Task No, Check Dates; HDREngnri%I- Alternate 9A: 500 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall Description Quantity Unit Prim Total CommeltsirSource Unit $knit) Removals Fwelnenk Renn,,d 4,200 Sr' $ 500 $ 21,J00 NoulRd &TIR SpRed,rd, 9dewalk Honov3 261 SI In 400 $ 1,J40 Duba uea tral Renove DrivorbaV Calvet 2 EA $ 225 $ 450 a D & Sockpileloresail 2050 CV $ 200 $ 4100 4" Levee Fmtrint Overerfavffiion 19,950 CV $ 400 $ '9 BOO 3 ver Poor nt of fill Renove 2onidar,Geoer 00 LF $ 500 $ 400 TeftS eerie Renove SanitareSnover Manhole 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,J00 Renove Stuff Saver Manhole/Area Inlet 1 EA $ 500 $ 500 Renove Stuff Saver 80 LF 500 400 V Renove 4 RAorDa`Ro Iaca Faistir T,,, 16 FA $ 1000 $ 10 TOO ll noun of Taff Ddt of charm L eves E w thvork EarrueoM Embankment 86,910 CY In 6.50 $ 564,320 3o /omm adlonWor Re reacTO sail 1,640 CV $ 200 $ 3,280 Rel i efWal is 13 EA $ 30,000 $ 480J00 Rel iefwelle dus pump Gast To, Dr. T 54D LF $ 1800 $ 9,720 Toe drain for l no ee outside of reli of wd l area FloWwall Conceal 1 LS $3,3335,890 $ 1335,390 per R ondwal l Cast Est . Rood Gates 3 EA $ 225,000 $ 6f5 J00 Pavement & LtilityCmdradim Cori bal oneerwi Baddinq I ,900 LF $ 6000 $ 114,J00 TaRSeedN anc IM lYamecressno Construct Sanita-V Sewer Manhole 2 EA $ 3,500 $ 7,J00 Construct Snuff SSlver M and Darrrf Inlet 1 EA $ 2750 $ 2750 Funnier& I n4al l Sui ca G2a 1 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,J00 Corutrud Eon, Saver o/ E eddi nq so LF $ 9000 $ 7,200 V Col brad Son n borer W E redi r in 11D LF $ 9000 $ 9,900 Acaoss Tall VVi Nil Dcbu ueRi OLrof Construct Sanita Sewervo Baldin 1,330 LF $ 6000 $ ,'9,300 ISouth o'Taft Soe.Jwav Construct Sanita-V Sewer Manhole 4 EA $ 3,500 $ 15520 South Taft SperJwaV Construct8 "FCC FZaanmt Taff Speadi 4260 SV $ 3500 $ 149100 rural %dion Conctrud7 "FCCFwdTo -dFaha Lot &Dnvowac 20D SV 5000 14500 Dnvcwa ..Iuc Floodalorrazlrc Corutmd0 "FCCSdavdk 28D SV 3150 6320 8widetral Contend Ehven Culvert on LF 8000 4300 30'eet. Extend Culverts 25 LF '50 3750 Taft &Dubuque Shears Construct12 "WaterLno 67D LF 197 131390 AIgnq No Name Construct 12 " Veber Lno 1]30 LF '9n 51870A Al no, Taft S), , Corutrud6 "VJater_Ine 43D LF 6800 37340 uroTeft ee]oa Cori 12" Water L ne 1330 LF "90 252700 Soudi o -Taft Speryl M wellaral frv,ry,,,I Fb,er RAJ n_ratinn 1 LS 15n6n 15rM ft_ Taft ,a klnNamr Driest, be rained fdor,waerFr l Try 3mcture ol Frn-p 9 Our 16 1 LE a 2 300 000 2300JOo Tl a fi c Conllo 1 LS 3500 3500 Erin an Control EI[tens 12110 LF 225 2/250 Davaledn 1 LS to 000 50J00 Seedi no 4 AC $ 4500 $ 18J00 Easanene Tem orar, add ramanenry 39,210 SF $ 275 $ 107,330 Idvllv✓ild M obi llzei on 3% 1 LS $ 72],570 $ 721570 Coruna aloes 25% 1 LS $ 2,251,910 $ 2,254,910 Enoi near no 6 %1 1 1 LS 1 $ 721,570 $ 721570 Total Cm4ruction Colitl I I $ 12, 825,500 " CBBG grant mnlribe tlon ten prewous'y a,p/cvel Freact eppticat /on Is18,01 j BJO MI, Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study fr 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry Alternative 9B - Levee /Flood Wall (500 -Year Plus 3 Feet with Taft Speedway Raise) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Project: TaR gaeedrvay Flood 3udy Estimator TRM Project: City oflediv Qty Dale TRM Task Checked By Im Task No, Check Dates HDR Eni me Alternate 913: 500 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall w/ Raised Road Description Quartitv Unit Price Total dkwt 55U1fce Unit $IUrYt ) Removals Nonni Wmp get on $ 2,300,000 E.ents $ Fevenent Renovd 10,270 W $ 500 $ 51,350 $ Sdomdk Removd 250 W $ 400 $ 1,000 Renove Drivom N Calvet 4 EA $ 225 $ 900 arip &Hock ileTO scil 2,700 CV $ 200 $ 5,400 4" L9ve3Footprint Ovaecadi on 38090 CV $ 400 $ 136,360 3' over footprint offirI RenoveSai[ 5 er 470 LF $ 500 $ 2,350 Tffi Sjpeev N cross no &dent No mane Rd RenoveSai[ 5 er Manner a 4 EA $ 500 $ 2000 , Renove germs er M ahole/Ars l het 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Renove germs er 80 LF $ 500 $ 400 1 V Renove& Rd ocde/Rel ae Ei an no Tress 10 EA $ 1,000 $ 10,000 Tres n orth of Tffi � of church L.. Eardruork Eathwork Embarkment 116,337 CV $ 650 $ 756,200 30% mm ationfator Resere Totten 1 2160 CV $ 200 $ 4,320 RdIatWdIS 16 EA $ 30,000 $ 480,000 Rdiat war Is pI us pu m teq Toe Drdn 540 LF $ 1800 $ 9,720 Toe drd n for l evs outs de of rel i of wd l as FloorN✓WI Floodwdl 1 LS $2,930,580 $ 2,930,580 per Fl oodwd l Coq Eg. FloodGa. 3 EA $ 225,000 $ 675,000 Pavern R& Util ity Cm4ruGion Conerud sai[ 5 er7/ Beddinq 1,900 LF $ 6000 $ 114,000 Tffi Spegv N cr sent & gone NONaneRd Construct Sai[ 5 erManhole 4 EA $ 3,500 $ 14,000 Construct germs er MarhololArslnld 2 EA $ 2,750 $ 5,500 Furnish &Ingdl Suice Gde 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Construct germs er w/ Beddi no 80 LF $ 9000 $ 7,200 V Construct germs er w/ Beddi no 110 LF $ 9000 $ 9,900 Acre. Tffi Within Dubuque Ri qht of -w Construct Sai[ S er w/ Beddinq 1,330 LF $ 6000 $ 79,800 South ofTffi SjpeevN Construct Sai[ 5 erNI nor 4 EA $ 3,500 $ 15,520 South ofTffi SjpeevN Construct 8 "FCC Pavement Tffi Sjpeel &NoNane Rd) 9,860 W $ 3500 $ 345100 mrdsaxion Construct? FCC Pavement Cgl<nq Lot &DriveN s 900 W $ 5000 $ 45,000 Construct 6 FCC S dewd k 280 W $ 3150 $ 8820 8'widetrdl Construct DriveN Culvert 120 LF $ 8000 $ 9,600 130 "eq. Extend Culverts 25 LF $ 150 $ 3,750 Tffi &Dubu uearsts Construct 12 "WdaLine 670 LF $ 197 $ 131,990 Alon NoNane Construct 12 "WdaLine 2,730 LF $ 190 $ 518,700 AIonqTJtSJDeedwN Construct 6' Waer Line 430 LF $ 8800 $ 3],840 Noah ofTffi SpeedwN Construct 12 "WdaLine 1,330 LF $ 190 $ 252,700 South ofTffi SjpeevN M hiullaneous Overheat Po erRdocanon 1 LS $ 85,000 $ 85,000 13 Tffi +4 NoNane For sm be rd sort aorinni Purnpi no aructu re w/ Purnp & Cut 4 1 LS $2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 Trdfi c Control 1 LS $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Enter on Control SIt Can m 8,240 LF $ 225 $ 18540 Dewdain 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Stein 5 AC $ 4,500 $ 22,610 E.ents Tennpor,arV andPamaren[ 39,210 $ 192 $ 75,430 1 WIWI d Mori lizJi on 8% 1 LS $ 733,260 $ 733,260 Conti ngenci s(25%) 1 LS $2,291,420 $ 2,291,420 Engi nsn ng(8 %) 1 LS $ 733,260 $ 733,260 Total ConetruGion CO $ 12,999,020 ODinm of Probable Cm4ruGion Cost$ rni 'CDBGgrant contribution frompreviouslyspprova projcmt spplicstion is$8,011,WO MI, Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study rr 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry Renovds &Mis_dlasus $ 1,200,000 Pavenent& Uti l ities Congructi on $ 1,]00,000 Loeeer`oodwdl Congmction $ 4,900,000 Nonni Wmp get on $ 2,300,000 E.ents $ 100,000 Conti n ends 25% $ 2,300,000 tenor nee, n 8% $ 800,000 TOTAL CFINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 133 000 'CDBGgrant contribution frompreviouslyspprova projcmt spplicstion is$8,011,WO MI, Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study rr 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry Alternative 9C- Levee /Flood Wall (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Taft Speedway, Iowa City Cuiert: City of larva City Date 5-JurF12 Project: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRIM Task Checked By IM Task No. Check Dates xDR Enein�nns I no Alternate 9C: 100 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall Description quantity Unt Price Stonnwda Pump Station Ckrnmert9Sotrce Unit I ($'f+1[). Remwals $ 2,000,000 Errol neen n 8% $ 700,000 TOTAL OFINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 11,400,000 Paemart Ranovd 3,640 SV $ 500 $ 18200 Sd.dk Ranovd 350 SV $ 400 $ 1,400 Ranove Dunvewbe Culvert 2 EA $ 225 $ 450 an p& Stock ileTO soil 1210 CV $ 200 $ 2,420 4" Lwee Footnnt Overso.dion 14,500 CV $ 400 $ 58, 0003 over footnnt of fill Ranove Sentgre Serra 80 LF $ 500 $ 400 Taft SpeedWav aassn Ranove Sentare Serra Manhole 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Ranove Stoops er Manhole/Area Inlet 1 EA $ 500 $ 500 Ranove Stoops er 80 LF $ 500 $ 400 1 V Ranove& Rdocgt AeglaceExrdnnqTreeq 10 EA $ 1,000 $ 10,000 Tress north of Taft eat of church Levee Earthwork Eat-work Embankment 25,950 CV $ 650 $ 168,680 30 % compaction factor Ressread TO soil 970 CV $ 200 $ 1340 RdiefWdls 16 EA $ 30,000 $ 480,000 Rdief wdls plus pump tai ToeDrdn 540 LF $ 1800 $ 9 72 Toedrain for tw% outsdeof rdief wdl area Floodwall FloocWall 1 LS $2,]00920 $ 2,700920 per Floo4Ndl Cast Opinion Flood Gds 3 EA $ 225,000 $ 675,000 Pavement & Utility Con4rudion Construct Sanita S erw/ Beddinq 100 LF $ 6000 $ 6,000 Taft SpeedWav aassn Construct Sauta-V Sswa Manhole 2 EA $ 3500 $ 7,000 Construct Stone Saver Manhole/Ar. Inlet 2 EA $ 2750 $ 5500 Fumisr &Indall Suce Gde 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Construct Stone Swerw/ Beddinq 30 LF $ 9000 $ 2700 V Construct Stone Swerw /Bedding 110 LF $ 9000 $ 9900 Acros Taft Within Dubuque Right-of -wag Construct Sanita S erw/ Beddinq 1330 LF $ 6000 $ 79,800 South of Taft SeecW Construct Sauta-V S erManhole 4 EA $ 3500 $ 15520 South of Taft SeecW Construct 8 "FCCPaanart Taft Speedl 3750 SV $ 35.00 $ 131250 mral section Construct ] "FCCPaanart ([DrDinq Lot &Driv.a 180 SV $ 5000 $ 9,000 ConsDud6 "FCCSd.alk 330 SV $ 3150 $ 10,400 8'widetrdl Construct Driv.aV Culvert 40 1 LF 1 $ 8000 $ 3200 30 eat Construct 12 "WataLine 670 LF $ 19700 $ 131990 Alone NoNane Construct 12 "WataLine 2730 LF $ 19000 $ 518700 Alone Taft SpeedWav ConsDud6 "WderLine 430 LF $ 8800 $ 3],840 North of Taft SeecW Construct 12 "WataLine 1330 LF $ 19000 $ 252700 SouqhofTaftSbeecWaa M isodlanmus Overhead Power Relocdion 1 LS $ 85,000 $ 85,000 13 Taft +4 NoNane PoIstoberaised? aonnwdaPum in Stmdurew /Wm &Outlet 1 LS $ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 3500 $ 3500 Erasion Control WtFenee 12,000 LF $ 225 $ 2],000 D.denn LS $ 50,000 $ Seedinq 1 2 1 AC 1 $ 4500 $ 10,110 Eaernerits (Ternpora-V and Permanent 19,600 W $ 275 $ 53900 Id (wild Mobilieation(8 %) 1 LS $ 623,700 $ 623,700 Contin .des 25% 1 LS $ 1,949,640 $ 1,949,640 Errol neen n 8% 1 LS $ 623,700 $ 623,700 Total Con4rudion Co3 $ 11,ol Opinion of Probable Con4ruRion Co3 Summary h Ranovds &Missllaneeus $ 900,000 Paemart & Uti l in as Constmcti on $ 1300,000 Lweei'lloodwdl Construction $ 4,100,000 Stonnwda Pump Station $ 2300,000 Eaernents $ 100,000 Conti n .des 25% $ 2,000,000 Errol neen n 8% $ 700,000 TOTAL OFINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 11,400,000 'CDBG grant contribution frompravicudy ernprovai project application is$8 0118W FDJ Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study fr 3 M Gry of lomsa Gry Alternative 913- Levee /Flood Wall (100 -Year Plus 3 Feet With Taft Speedway Raise) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of Iowa City Date 5-Jun -12 Project: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRIM � Task Checked By 1 L Task No, Check Dates HDR Engneri,, I m. Alternate 9D: 100 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall w/ Raised Road -esviption Quantity Unit Price Total $ Unit I Removals 4,000,000 Stoumwaer R/m Station $ 2300,000 Easements Pavement Removal 10,630 SV $ 500 $ 53150 Taft Seto No Name Road 9dewal k Perri 350 SV $ 400 $ 1,400 Feder Dubuque Remove Drved,aV Calvet 4 EA $ 225 $ 900 an R & Stock ileTope, 1 2,500 CV $ 200 $ 5,000 4" Levee Foots nt Ove.c.dii on 3120 CV $ 400 $ 12,480 3 ova foots nt of fi ll Remove Sandare Serra 100 LF $ 500 $ 500 Taft Spetol crossn Remove Sandare Serra Manhole 4 EA $ 500 $ 2000 , Remove Storm Saver M anhole/Area l nl of 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Remove Storm Ewer 80 LF $ 500 $ 400 v Remove &RdocaidRe lace Exi so no Trees 10 EA $ 1,000 $ 10,000 TresenorthofTafteds [ ofchurch L evee Earthi Earthwork Embankment 38,250 CV $ 650 $ 248,625 30 %mm adionfactor Resented To soil 2000 , CV $ 200 $ 4,000 Relief Wells 16 EA $ 30,000 $ 480,000 Rel ief wel is ftl us pum R tort Toe Dran 540 LF $ 1800 $ 9,720 Toe and n for l evee outsi de of rel i of w d l area Floodwall Fl coal d1 1 LS $2,574,260 $ 2574,260 For Fl oodwal l Cod Ed. Flood Cards 3 EA $ 225,000 $ 675,000 Pavement & Utility Condrudion Construct Snita Sdverwl Bacchus 100 LF $ 6000 $ 6,000 Taft Speecava,, crossn Construct Snita Ewer Manhole 5 EA $ 3,500 $ 17,500 Construct Storm Ewer Manhole/Area lnld 2 EA $ 2,750 $ 5,500 Furnish& Install Sluim Gae 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Construct Storm Ewer w / Beach ru 80 LF $ 9000 $ 7,200 v Construct Storm Ewer w / Beach ru 110 LF $ 9000 $ 9,900 Across Taft Wthi n Dubuque Ri ft-of Construct Snita Sverw /Beddin 1,330 LF $ 6000 $ 79,800 Sound ofTaft Speadl Construct Snita Ewer Manhole 4 EA 1 $ 3,500 $ 15,520 ISound ofTaft Sreadwav, Construct 8 "PCC Pavement Taft Speadi 9,380 SV $ 3500 $ 328,300 rural sectiion Construct? PCCPavement Parki no Lot &Ddvewas 670 SV 3500 23450 Consmud6 "PCCSdemak 330 SV 3150 10400 8'widetral Construct Dnvem Culvert 120 LF 8000 9600 30 eat Construct 12 "Waterline 670 LF 19700 131990 Alon NoName Construct 12 "Waterline 2730 LF 19000 518700 Al one Taft Sineadwav, Consmud6 "WataLine 430 LF 8800 37840 North ofTaft Sreadwav, Construct 12 "Waterline 1330 LF 19000 252700 Sound ofTaft Sineadwav, M iwellaneous Overhead Power Rel road on 1 LS 85000 85000 13 Taft) +4 (No Name) Polesto be raised? Stoumw der Pom i no Structure w / Pump &OUtld 1 LS 2300000 2300000 Tried c Control 1 LS 3500 3500 Erosion Control SItFenm 8240 LF 225 18540 Dev,denn 1 LS 50000 50000 Satin 4 AC 4500 18000 Easements (Temporai and Permanent) 39,210 SF $ 192 $ 75,430 Id llwiId M obi Ii adi on 8% 1 LS $ 642,230 $ 642230 Conlin enaas 25% 1 LS $ 2,006,970 $ 2,006,970 Frei neen n 8% 1 LS $ 642,230 $ 642230 Total Condrudion Cod $ 11,094,7&5 Opinion of Probable CondruRion Cod Summary Descri. ti Removals& Macdlaleous $ 1,000,000 Pavement& Utilities Construction $ 1500,000 Levead'oodwall Construdion $ 4,000,000 Stoumwaer R/m Station $ 2300,000 Easements $ 100,000 Fortin enaas 25% $ 2,100,000 Frei neen n 8% $ 700,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 11,700,000 'CDBG grant contribution from previously enproveil project application is $8, Oii, W0 MI, Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Study fr Gry of lomsa Gry cv 3 CL N V / L4 u _O LL N r-I N Gl 3 Y H V 'I�ir o tin LL ~IC � V lu o -411 iii 0 u IA aj .mz Wftft � .� � th last z ft 44 aj � � k 0 2 LL D 2 E 2 E 2 0 (1) U V) U � 0 V � �Z V E u � � u E u .X V M EL 2 � � E u � � � u � � o E � o � u � C Q- E D � O E � E E 0 U . . k � ' ) �r . . r g �� .p ■ \ oil 66 �41 / U k 0 2 LL D 2 E 2 E 2 0 (1) U V) U � 0 V � �Z V E u � � u E u .X V M EL 2 � � E u � � � u � � o E � o � u � C Q- E D � O E � E E 0 U . . k � ' ) �r . . . iAwk .p � D u � � O Q E Q- 0 2 Q Q � E Q O O V) w W W -0 V) . E q E b-0 > V r m 0 u E � / � zi z u u E E / (a E u E > CL CO . . . iAwk .p � v O U N i 0� 0� 9 H O _O L O U � ca 4-0 0 � O 4mJ O 0, E O w /W W E O N Ln N t�A Q vI W O O C.7 • V 'I�ir o tin LL V T P C6 .S_ G O O L.L C6 Q 4f ro fa O Q U N N V • Ul fa SL% Lam, fa O O O fa N fa CL O Q .0 Q U N O U VP O 0� • U Q .E N E E N fa i ["i U i O O fa E L O "m N L -* O cu U ca E 0 O N O a� N a►, U 0� O ca OC U • N E cr N i ca t�A m Y H V 4 'I r o ' o IC V r o 4- T Vl r � v y � a V i •� (n Q ,a i Q a a •vf � v •� Q Q Y1�Y - LL V r ,,J w� V N V`Jl ryo c 0 !o c as E 0 O !o D �4 MEc � cd J � m �L c � 0 �+ L as V1 v� c ar V a d vi C O m c a E: o O O .o c d N N E E m iu N ai O ch N r Go `m Q 0 N d J a C u a 3 C a a d d Q U N ice+ V a O U U 0 N N N s U O U U_ O i a U O U Y H V 4 fu o I T lb buo [w'W' W V N \W ro W El •ro V 'I�ir o tin LL V W I� P!! W L 3 N L T buo nW W V N I l^o i W p ro T V 'I�ir o tin LL V N O L W ^W W L N LL L 3 r a sy a a a a A _fig° - zY`yv £gNffia��°,R _good= E- avF ��8�c? Yp6Eivaq mE�o� ?`- oQ3 � aRE _ ®iCUEtfl3 gc__ o o �� . dN a of n= gym- Es'S�`Da�s £rtvA��aer o�d �ka�`EY °'s� s' "xQ °� °��vp °�v '_cam➢ >' v� woa E`z'f'gp3$2 - 8 i�a a :zv y "s V 'I�ir o tin LL V N O L W ^W W L N LL L 3 r �� . dN V 'I�ir o tin LL V N O L W ^W W L N LL L 3 r W ro C �--� f6 W W E 0 > w 0 f6 a-+ a) 4-J L O f6 L ateJ D U O U m f6 Q E a 0 a � N 0 a) � Ln j V a) O U C: L � O bm a) U E a) _O w O Ez -I-Z N U L � a �U w 0 Q L N BRA/ 'L � N � N a) � N a) N a .0 w L � Q) LU o � f6 � w C_ 07 11A U � a -0 Y H V 4 -Ili' o IC � V r ro V_ V W ^0 W Io1 �_J to i .Q Q 16 a) U f73 i Ln 0 c>3 L7 U � - _O C � c>3 pp C � N n LL O R* Q) O L 4� 4 ! 0 X N tn .o N O Y i U o O N L (� m N L f13 O 4- H O �{d 3 i L J U f>3 0 _O 0o O O LL Lli O 0) a) m X 0 Q Q El N i O 4- f0 f>3 0 f73 N O D U U 0 1 N 0 U LL J W N i V �{d 0 CL a sx aj aj L N N O 0 m O O > N f73 c>3 > N .q� u 'I�ir o tin LL IC � V �`e 0 a U O J O O 00 O /1 V ro 4- O O -1-j U f�6 2 Ll Q- 0 N O .> U TV N fLN � O 6 , a TCL L V N N L � U L O D L c=3 4.d Q Ln N V tp N O U N Q U _ . •J fL _ B U 0 BU O a Y H Q Iir o tin LL V a U b (1) (1) O >. O � O O 'L O OD -a.., o >;vo°c (n TV N fLN � O 6 , a TCL L V N N L � U L O D L c=3 4.d Q Ln N V tp N O U N Q U _ . •J fL _ B U 0 BU O a Y H Q Iir o tin LL V a V ro T� 1 l � > > 4' N O N m � i OC - Q Q O a a am cn N Y O E +' O 0 0 u O oOC a� c� O o V) � Ln N ) � � +- (B 3: a i cB _> s CL UC: C N O O O Z3 0 0 3> > O p c N 2 U u oC Y H V 4 -Ili' o IC � V a k ''2 r / 10 0 � lb un -� - ~ � . V) _ 0 . / 4 2 .g k g - �• 2 _ \/ \/ / �\ / w _ -0.@ 2 / ? 'Z- a) 0 / d d M u¥ ¥_0 ' ■o / ■ erg® m ®.g.g ■= ■ CL �E• 72 > �/ V >\> (e / \ � 0 E o 2 2 CL c cr- .. � • / U % 0/ 0§=f > /20®L=.y L / f ®m\ LL LL m m�/ 2 t �#�. M y L22��UcCLU L_CL _ _ W . _•_ o\ > >- U n f - §2 § §/ 6 §� R� R o 0 �> u 02 L e ems. m'> §pe�oe > e o E 6 o 62 o 4A /> Ln Q ��/ ��. a)�/ �2 \ -0 ,3: �/ / 2 /�/ k 2 2 t § e X200 0+£ —�0 0 o.go= 0® �0k�kx��/�� _ k moo® ■o -0 oowV) ■o ■� c 22 o2e »t ».> » »e / ƒ y \ m _ < me °. °u Z� « }m/ (A 6 -0= (A mo r_ g E ~ >�Z00 ■e■ -2 ■-0 °(� ■e ■ <Q 'm ■e■� k Q k �/3$ %$ %/$\$+ $. M — M — • V) /o c.c a >° a a// a\ e 2 2 f a f{ a 2 a� a o a E � k2% «222&2/2//2\27 2 0 � . . . . . . . . k ''2 r / 10 0 � lb W J- J ro W J- J buo J- J O z .q� u 'I�ir o tin LL V T 9 W J- J ro W J- J El Y H 4 -Ili' o IC � V T W J- J ro W J- J El Y1�Y u _o _ LL 0 V T 0 0 W J- J ro W J- J El .q� u 'I�ir o tin LL V T a W J- J ro W J- J El .q� u 'I�ir o tin LL V PI N as W J- J ro W J- J El Y H 4 -Ili' o IC � V 7 F W J- J ro W J- J El .q� u Iir o tin LL o V 7 F L• W J- J ro W J- J El .q� u 'I�ir o tin LL V T 0 J- J 0 U J ctf m co 0 0 .q� u 'I�ir o tin LL V T ca ca O DC N N J c 0 0 U 0 _0 L.L M 1 O ,uO ^' P O I o c o W n +' r� C U O o� c � n c o c U N n � V t V) 4� o Q T c a� a Y E ra x• L T �s — _ 3 3 C C C C C C C C C C V O O In O O O m 0T-1 0T-1 0 r� 0 rn 2 •r o -1 O m 0 -1 O O O O = O V J 0 -Ln C -Ln C -Ln LS C C C C C C C C rn 0 m 0 -1 O m 0 -1 O O O r� OqzT O V J 0 -Ln C -Ln C -Ln C i/? C i/? C i/? C i/? C C 00 0 O •� t4 .. C C C C C C C m C N O I, O Ol O m o r -I O m o 00 O 0 •� . I = cI = = N = O = N = O U 0 CL CL O C C C C C C C C u 0 0 O .� O m 0 N O m 0 00 O O v Nr -I = r -I = Ln = N = O = N = O = m - O v U 0 ' '• C C C C C C C ``. C o rn 0 0 0 � O Cr) 0� 0 In O 00 O O O D � �] r > � C C C C C C C C Ol O W O N O m 0 N O 9T O In O rl O _ 00 x -Ln C -Ln C -Ln C -Ln C -Ln C -Ln C -Ln C -Ln C y� 0 .. C C C C C C C C i In O lD O O O O O N O In O N O O O 0 O= rI = O= O= O= O= O= Cr) = U O L ) C O to V 4� u N L J O U U N N N (6 N > 0 N N ~ O+ > O "0 E (00 0 C 0A 1 w m V) � w 0 U w N /1 O 'i' L v U CO ro G ro 0 a Mjm ca �7 L� Ul E a� O U 2 co O .o fa G • Y H V 4 'I r o ' o IC V r W A 1 � � U f6 O c6 O N O N O O E E 0 o � o co U .— cn � a- U I I I w 3E Y H V 4 'I r o ' o IC V r T [E �w�/� Vl ro W III E W r - F- i O � W T � Z W 0 W `Ya Oct El- lYa 00 � a'rC- aUDa k A III r��m o= t�- F- V 4 I r o IC � V T W L V) 4-j W ^E W V) Q� (n N � N QU ) 4-1 N O O O Q Q C: C: O O V) V cr cr O (a (a E W W }+ E E Q� O fa (a m LU LU • • • III E W r - F- i O � W T � Z W 0 W `Ya Oct El- lYa 00 � a'rC- aUDa k A III r��m o= t�- F- V 4 I r o IC � V T A �TA7 40j, J- J J- J J .q� u 'I�ir o V r U U _N W i N i ate-+ N i fB .q� u 'I�ir o V r W buo ro ro n L O L O re L Q� N O LL .q� u 'I�ir o aq LL V a O L buo O U N N i N � � fB 4A O Q- E+� 0 O D a N +� U N i O O O N ci .q� u 'I�ir o aq LL V a W TW i O L U. O C� v • c 0 !o c as E .J 0 O !o D .. CL MEC cd J � m a �L c � 0 �+ L as V1 CT C Ct Ca V a d vi C O m c a, E: o O O .o c i._ a N d N E E T �O iu N ai O ch N L N C `m Q 0 N d J C u 1 3 .y C u .v a a, a, Y H V 4 fu o I T lb Ca U 3 O 2 O N E E O ca O • W ca N N Q Ln O i l v a v s 0 v i 0 ,v C] V 'I�ir o tin LL V T R. IA Wo .tom^ V c V N E a-1 a-1 fB O In Q N O E O Q O Q E U a 4_j E N O E c� O Q In � N O 4-j U V) C] 14LU; &� ;911. a-1 Q� L � N � N N O � }' O N � Q i In O O CL Q cn O N N 4-1 Z3 In E +� N t]A N N O N v [] Q� L O Q� U O E E O N U O N � O i O N N N � tuD E c� E N CL O n c� O In O O c� m Y H V 4 -Ili' o IC V r u g�a o _` 0 V .tom^ V c V N E a-1 a-1 fB O In Q N O E O Q O Q E U a 4_j E N O E c� O Q In � N O 4-j U V) C] 14LU; &� ;911. a-1 Q� L � N � N N O � }' O N � Q i In O O CL Q cn O N N 4-1 Z3 In E +� N t]A N N O N v [] Q� L O Q� U O E E O N U O N � O i O N N N � tuD E c� E N CL O n c� O In O O c� m Y H V 4 -Ili' o IC V APPENDIX I: TAFT SPEEDWAY FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY OPINIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: Cityof Iowa City Date 5- Jun -12 Project: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRM� Task Checked By Task No. Check Dates HDR Engneaing I nc Alternate 213: Foster Road to 500 Year + 1' Opinion of Probable Construction Cost summar Description Total ($) Earthwork, Removas, 8 Mixtllaiecus $ 500,000 Pa'emaRB lltilitig Cmstructim $ 1,600,000 Leem'Flmdwall Construction $ Stormweter Pump Station $ Ea eats $ 200.000 Conti cies 25% $ 500,000 Engineeri 8% $ 200,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ $000,000 'CDBG grant contribution frwnprevious'y approved project application is SROI 1,800 mural: e/ 3"xn210A AM c sSummmy_J-2oi2 Reporcbv FnW1 d1 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of lava City Date 5-.Ln -12 Project: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRIM Task Checked By faq Task No. Check Dates HDR Engneedng Ina Alternate 2B: Foster Road to 500 Year + V Description Quantity Unit Price Total ($ Comments/Source Unit ($/unit) Removals $ 200,000 Contingencies(25 %) $ 500,000 lowenent Renova 5,390 SY $ 5.00 $ 26,950 1,465 LF Foster Road 9dewalk Renova 640 SY $ 4.00 $ 2,550 South side of Foster Stri p & Stock Pi IaT '1 56D CY $ 2.00 $ 1,120 4" Remove Curb Inlets 20 EA $ 750 $ 15,000 Remove&RdocadR ace Trees 30 EA $ 1,000 $ 30,000 South side of Foster Earthwork Eerthwork Embankment 23,760 CY $ 6.50 $ 154,440 30% c ion factor RespreacTopsoil 450 CY $ 2.00 $ 900 Pavement & Utility Construction Construct Curb Inlets 20 EA $ 2,500 $ 50,000 Construct 6' PCC Rave ie t Foster Road 5,190 SY $ 35.00 $ 161,650 31' Urten Salim, 1,485 LF Construct T PCC Pavenet (Parking Lot & Driveways) 670 SY $ 35.00 $ 23,450 ldyllwild and Parkview Church entrance Construct TPCC Sdewak 1,190 SY $ 31.50 $ 37,490 6'widetral Construct Culvert LF $ Raise Ex. Frees dart 3 EA $ 6,000 $ 24,000 2 @ No Name ,1 @ ldyllwild Construct 8'Water Line 1,580 LF $ 109 $ 172,220 along Foster Road, gate valves, fittings Construct 16" Water Line 1,580 LF $ 283 $ 447,140 along Foster Road, gate valves, fittings Construct 37" Water Line 1,580 LF $ 372 $ 587,76) along Foster Road, butterfly valves, fittings Miscellaneous Overhsed Power Relocation 1 LS $ 35,000 $ 35,000 7 Polesto be rernoved& relocated Traffic Control 1 LS $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Erosion Control Sit Fence 1,340 LF $ 2.25 $ 3,015 Dmateri 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Seeding 1 AC $ 4,500 $ 4,650 Remove& Replace LandsoapingliBitrance M muments 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Easements and Permanent 43,560 SF $ 2.75 $ 119,790 ldyllwild Mobilization 8°/ 1 LS $ 146,670 $ 146,670 Contin ties 25% 1 LS $ 465,220 $ 465,220 Engneffing (8%) 1 LS $ 146,670 $ 146,670 Total Construction Cost $ 2,743,595 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost SunnmarY Description Eathwork, Renovalr, & Miscellaneous $ Total ($) 500,000 Pasenet& Utilities Construction $ 1,6D0,000 LeseefRoodvall Construction $ Rormater Pump Station $ Easements $ 200,000 Contingencies(25 %) $ 500,000 En'neerin 6% $ 200,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 3,000,000 `CDBG gra t wntributim frmnprenmsfy approvedpreject appfiratim is $$011,800 NUa1:&19rt01212NM C Smmar, Juno2012 Re nxl Pagv1 oft O inion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of Iowa City Date 5- Jun -12 Project: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRM� Task Checked By Task Nm Check Dates HDR Engineering, Inc Alternate 7: 100 -Year + 3' Levee Opinion of Probable Coi6ruction Cost Summary Description Total $ RenovasB Mixtllaneous $ 900.000 Pavenet B Uti l ities Construction $ 1,600,000 -e Floodwal Construction $ 1,200,000 Stormwav Pump Stall on $ 2,300,000 Ea9 nets $ 200,000 Conti ecies25% $ 1,400,000 Engi neei 8% $ 500,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 8,100,000 ' CDBGgrardoa, driGrtionfr=prmous'yapprovedproja applicatimis$8,011,SX mmm: �2 lossnm cos&—W J-2012_Rro rLAM Pa i a 1 opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of Iowa City Date 5- Jun -12 Project: Taft Speedway Rood S" Estimator TRM � Task Checked By Task No. Check Dates HDR Enginwing, Inc Alternate 7: 100 -Year + 3' Levee Descriptim Quantity Unit Price Total $ CommmtslSourm Unit $lunit Rerwals Conin elciss 25% $ 1,400,000 E ineei 8% $ 500,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST Pavenet Renova 11,310 SY $ 5.00 $ 56,550 No Nane Rd B Taft Speedway Sidewalk Removal 350 SY $ 4.00 $ 1,400 Dubuque St. trail Renove Drivmay Culvert 4 EA $ 250 $ 1,000 Stri & Sock ile TO soil 2,690 CV $ 2.00 $ 5,380 4r Levee Footprint OV9excwa on 28,000 CV $ 4.00 $ 112,000 3 w footprint of fill Renove Sanitary Sever 1,260 LF $ 5.00 $ 6,300 Taft cross &lineal Renove Sanitary Sever Manhole 5 EA $ 500 $ 2,500 Renove Storm Sever Malhole'Area Inlet 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Renove Storm Sever 80 LF $ 5.00 $ 400 V Renove & Relocate'ReplaceExistingTrees 10 EA $ 1,000 $ 10,000 Trees north of Taft east of church Leree Earthwork Earthwork (Embankment) 98,670 CY $ 6.50 $ 641,355 30% corripacdon factor Respread TO soil 2,150 CY $ 2.00 $ 4,300 Relief Wails 16 EA $ 30,000 $ 480,000 relief well plus pump test Toe Drain 2,440 LF $ 18.00 $ 43,920 Toe Bran for levee outside of relief well area Pavaret & Utility Co structim Construct Sanitary Sere w/ Bedding 1,260 LF $ 60.00 $ 75,600 TaftSpeedwaycrossiM& lineal Construct Sanitary Sere Manhole 5 EA $ 3,500 $ 17,500 Construct Storm awe Malhole'Area l nlef 2 EA $ 2,750 $ 5,500 Furnish& I real Sluice Gas 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Construct Storm awe w/ Bedding 80 LF $ 90.00 $ 7,200 V Construct Storm awe w/ Bedding 110 LF $ 90.00 $ 9,900 Across Taft Within Dubuque Mqht-of-way Construct Sanitary, awe w/ Bedding 1,330 LF $ 60.00 $ 79,800 South of Taft Elcgedway Construct Sanitary Sere Manhole 4 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 15,520 South of Taft Elcgedway Construct e" PCC Pavement Taft 8,600 SY $ 35.00 $ 301,000 rural se:ti on Construct 7" PCC Pave tet (Parkinq Lot & Driver s 1,780 SY $ 35.00 $ 62,300 5% dope on drivettays Construct 6" PCC Sidexak 330 SY $ 31.50 $ 10,400 9widetral Construct Drrver ay Culvert 4 160 LF $ 80.00 $ 12,800 30' est. Reiss Ex. Fire Hydrant 5 EA $ 8,000 $ 40,000 Construct 12" Water Line 670 LF $ 197 $ 131,990 Alom No Narne Road Construct 12" Water Line 2,730 LF $ 190 $ 518,700 Alom Taft Eoeedway Construct 6" Water Line 430 LF $ 88.00 $ 37,840 North of Taft Speedway Construct TWae Line 1,330 LF $ 190 $ 252,700 South of Taft Eoeedway Miscellaneous Overhead Power Relocation 1 LS $ 125,000 $ 125,000 22 Taft +3 No Nane Polesto be rased Stormwae Pumpinq Structurew/ Pump & Outlet 1 LS $ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Erosion Control Silt Fence 7,090 LF $ 2.25 $ 15,960 Devaein 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Seeding 5 AC $ 4,500 $ 22,500 Easenets (Terporary, ad PemaleR' 87,950 9F $ 2.38 $ 209,463 ldyllwild Mobilization 8% 1 LS $ 438,550 $ 438,550 Conin elciss 25% 1 LS $1,370,460 $ 1,370,460 E ineei 8% 1 LS $ 438,550 $ 438,550 Total Construction Cast $ 7,94M 1) 77e maR m4sare 9ightlyNflaalt no. NOoo9mrvnin Ne.LneQ 2012 public i ,, due to there.tretleto oh*a Gty,,ut.t that 5oim swan O:irion of uescriptim Renovas &Miscelmn us $ 900.000 Pavenet& Utilities Construction $ 1,600,000 Levee'Floodwal Construction $ 1,200,000 Stormwae Pump Station $ 2,300,000 Easmets $ 200,000 Conin elciss 25% $ 1,400,000 E ineei 8% $ 500,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST It 4100,000 ` CDBGgrantm -&,bLtimfrwnpadotdyaoprovedpole applicationis$QOII,800 Pruned MY 21 MW Co &mm nt J-2012 Re rtAv Pge1 m 1 O pinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of Iowa City Date 5- Jun -12 Prcject: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRM Task Checked By q Task No. Check Dates HDR Engnming Inc Alternate 8: 500 -Year + 3' Floodwall Opinion of Probable Construction Cos Summary Devi tike RarwalsB Misodlonecus $ Total $ 900000 PasenaR B UtilitimConstmctim $ 1000000 1-wedRoodxall Construction $ 700,000 st n ate Pum 3aim $ Z3DO,000 EasenaRs $ 100,000 CDntin cies 25°/ $ Z5DO,000 En ineai 6% $ 800,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 14,300,000 `CDBGgrant mdribLtimfranpre wdyappraedprojatapplicatimis $$011,800 NUN F2er1D121947AM Co Summ W June2012 RepoR-0sx Pege1 d1 O inion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of lava City Date 5,Am -12 Project: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRM 1 Task Checked By L q Task No. Check Dates HEIR Engmairg, Inc Alternate 8: 500 -Year + 3' Floodwall Removals Quantity Unit Price Unit $ /unit Stormwata Pump Station $ 2,300,000 Pavement Rarroval 190 SY $ 5.00 $ 950 Roodvall crossing of driveways Sidewalk Raroval $ 14,300,000 SY $ Rarove Driveway Culvert EA $ - East church entrance, Isevein Oace Stn &Sock'IeTo 'I Cy $ - 4" Rarove Sari Seeer 80 LF $ 5.00 $ 400 Taft Speedway aossing RarroveSwitarySeNer Manhole 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Rarove Storm Seeer 80 LF $ 5.00 $ 400 v Rarrove& RelocatelReplace Existing Tres 10 EA $ 1,000 $ 10,000 Tres north of Taft east of church Floodwall Roodvall 1 LS $ 5721050 $ 5721050 per Floodwall Cost Est. Flood Gate; 4 EA $ 225,000 $ 900,000 Pavement & Utility Construction Construct Sanitary Seeer w/ Bedding 1,260 LF $ 60.00 $ 75,600 Taft Speedway aossing Construct Sanitary Sever Manhole 2 EA $ 3,500 $ 7,000 Furnish& Install Sluice Crate 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Construct Storm Sever w/ Bedding 80 LF $ 90.00 $ 7,200 v Construct Storm SeNerwl Bedding 110 LF $ 90.00 $ 9,900 Across Taft Within Dubuque Rght-af-way Construct Sanitary Sever w/ Beddim 1,330 LF $ 60.00 $ 7 800 South of Taft Speadivay Construct Sanitary Sever Manhole 4 EA $ 3,500 $ 15,520 South of Taft Speadivay Construct 8" PCC Pavement (Taft 60 SY $ 35.00 $ 2,100 Construct T PCC Pavement Paki Lot & Dnvev 190 SY $ 50.00 $ 9,500 ilbRoocklates Construct 6 "PCC Sidewalk SY $ - 8'widetral Construct 12" Water Line 2,730 LF $ 190 $ 518,700 Along Taft Speedway Construct 6" Wsta Line 1,330 LF $ 190 $ 252,700 South of Taft Spei Misoellarems Stormwater lournprig Structurew /Pum &Outlet 1 LS $2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 3,500 $ 3500 Erosion Control Sit Farce 4,000 LF $ 225 $ 9,000 Devctain 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Seeding 1 AC $ 4,500 $ 4500 Eaerronts(Ternporayand PaneiaR)1 22,050 SF $ 2.75 $ 60,638 ldyllwild M oUlization 6% 1 LS $ 799,910 $ 799910 Conti aicies 25% 1 1 LS $ 2,499,710 $ 2,499,710 Engneei 1 1 LS 1 $ 799,910 1 $ 799,910 Total ConstructionCostl I I I $ 1A158,988 i) the ®.mratl m9sae9iq'dlydffera�t fromtFro.9'shawninlheJUie 6, 2012p1b'icr�irg tluetothe revisonsrretletosati3ya Gtyratuirem�[ [ha[ ovate- r�nsbe.gaa-de16y fOled lransanitayantl dorm.. Cost Summery Dear 'an Rarovals& Miscellaneous dal $ 900,000 Pavement& Utilities Construction $ 1,000,000 LevedFloodvall Construction $ 6,700,000 Stormwata Pump Station $ 2,300,000 Easerronts $ 100,000 Conti encies 25% $ 2,500,000 Encinesi $ 800,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 14,300,000 CDBGgrani cantriMRim f ranprenm5ydoprovdprojeYW#icatim is$8,011,800 Nntol: 10112012 1M I'M C S=mary June 12 Repi1xiax Pale1 d1 pinion of Probable Construction Cost. Taft SDeedway. Iowa Citv City of Iowa City Date 5-Jun-12 Taft Speaiway Flood Study Es5mator TRM Checked By 1 L � Check Dates HOR Engn.i,. l nc. Alternate 9A: 500 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall Opinion cf Probable Construction Cost &lmmary Desariptim Total $ Removals &Mixd l aneous $ 1,000.000 Paienmt& Utilities Cmstrudim $ 1.400.000 Lwoefloodwall Construction $ 5.100000 9ormwatm Pum 99im $ 2 300 000 Lasnmts $ 200000 Contin cics 2594 $ 2 300 000 Ln inwrin % 300,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 13,100,000 'CDBG9rant mnt,,bd,. trwn Previou9Yappro✓etl pojeIX application is88, 011,8W Rintal 6J 012 1049A Cosl., June2012_nep.1a. Pagel d1 union of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of Iowa City Date 5-Jun-12 Prciec: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRM Task Checked By 1 L � Task No. Check Dates HOR Engneai,, I rt. Alternate 9A: 500 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall Decal uw Quantit Unit Price Total $ Comment4Sourw Unit $ /unit Remwds En in.nn % $ 800000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 13,000,000 Pwonmt Removal 4200 SV $ 500 $ 21000 No A..Rd. &Taff Sp.eiway Slovak Removal 260 SY $ 400 $ 1,040 Dub ue R. tra1 Ranwe Dnry Culvert 2 EA $ 225 $ 450 Sri & Sack iioT i 2050 CY $ 200 $ 4100 4" Levee Fod n nt OVaa covation 19950 CY $ 400 $ 79800 Twa fwtW nt of fill Ranwe Smif Server w LF $ 500 $ 400 Taff Spoeftay c.n Ranwe Sanit Server Manhde 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Remove Sonn Sava M mholdAr. I nld 1 EA $ 500 $ 500 Ranwe Sonn Sava w LF $ 500 $ 400 V Ranwe &Rdoc oR lace Exidin Tree:; 10 EA $ 1000 $ 10000 Tres north of Taft eui of church Levee Earhwork Earthwork Embankment 86910 CY $ 650 $ 564920 3096 cornicadion factor Res r. TopI 1640 CY $ 200 $ 3,280 Relief Wdls 16 EA $ 30000 $ 480000 Rdidwdls Ius um tai Toe Drain 540 LF $ 1800 $ 9720 Tmdrain forleveeoutudeof rdidwel arm Flaodwell Floodwall 1 LS $ 3,255,900 $ 3,255,900 Floodwall Cog Est. Flood Gat. 3 EA $ 225000 $ 675000 Pavenerd& Lnfiiitycan Wficn Construct 53nntary Savawf BoMinn 1900 LF $ 6000 $ 114000 TaftSpeoftay and No Namecr n 13onstruct53nit Sava Mantwle 2 EA $ 3,500 $ 7000 Construct Sonn Siva ManholdArminld 1 EA $ 2,750 $ 2,750 Fumidi &Install Suice Gate 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20000 Construct Rom Saver w /Beddin w LF $ 9000 $ 7,2M V Construct Rom Saver wl Bedding 110 LF $ 9000 $ 9,900 Acm.Tdf Within Dubu uo Ri htcHv Construct S3nita Smaw /Beddi 1,330 LF $ 6000 $ 79800 South of Taff Spealway Construct S3nita Sava Manhole 4 EA $ 3500 $ 15520 South of Taff Spealway Construct 8" MG P.. ent CFaft 4,260 w $ 35M $ 149100 Inural section Construct T PCCPwement (Pesking Lot &Dnvm 290 w $ 5000 $ 14,500 J!Dn. i.Hoodqat..Ms Construct 6" MG Sidewdk 200 w $ 3150 $ 8,820 8'witletral Construct Dnry Culvert w LF 1 $ 8000 $ 4,800 30'ed. Extmd CuNats 25 LF $ 150 $ 3,750 Taft & Dubuque Sreels Construct 12" Water Line 670 LF $ 197 $ 131,990 AI.q No Name Construct 12' Water Line 2,730 LF $ 190 $ 518,700 Along Taff w Construct 6' Wda Line 430 LF $ 8800 $ 37840 North off aft Sp.eiwW CondructU Wda Line 1330 LF $ 190 $ 252700 South of Taff SpaAwW Mixdlaneous Ovahard Pwva Relocation 1 LS $ 55000 $ 55000 8 Craft) +3 oName PoI.to be raisetl So.wata Nrn -n Srudurew /PUm &Outlet 1 LS $2300000 $ 2300000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Ernson Control Sit F., 1 110 LF $ 225 $ 27,250 D.at.nn 1 LS $ 50000 $ 50000 Seeding 4 AC $ 4,500 $ 18000 Easenmts en and PermmaA 39210 9= $ 275 $ 100830 Idyllwild Modlization % 1 LS $ 715180 $ 715180 Contin ci. 2596 1 LS $ 2 34910 $ 2 34910 En in.nn % 1 LS $ 715180 $ 715180 Told CmstruRion Cost $ 1 ]127W Opinion d Probable Constructi on Cmi Summary Desci-iptim Ranwds &Mixdlaneo. Total $ $ 1000.000 P Mon& ufiltli.Cmdrudim $ 1400000 Lw�oodwall Conaruction $ 5000000 Sormwata PUm Rdim $ 2300000 Easenmts $ 200000 Confin ci.25 $ 2,300,000 En in.nn % $ 800000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 13,000,000 ' CDBG9rmtmntribdimfrmprwmudyaWro poj.dapplimtimis$8,Ml,8L0 Ring: 9f192012 12 :05 PM CoslSUmmay lune2012_Repw .. Pd 1 N1 opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa Ci Client: Cty Speedway City Date SJun -12 � Project: Taft sway Flood 3udy Estimator TRfvl Task Checked By Task Na Check Dates HDR Er,.,ny I rc. Alternate 9B: 500 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall w/ Raised Road ODinim rt Probable Corstrudim Cc6 Smmary Devi ion Total $ Ran ds &Mis9lmn us $ 1,200,000 Pavanart &UOIiIiaCOn4mtlian $ 1,700,000 Lweo'FloocvallC ngrudlon $ 4900000 S0411rvialer PJMP SahDn $ 2300000 F�r�atls $ 100,000 Corti da 25% $ 2300000 Em -neai 8% $ 800000 TOTAL CHANCY OF COAGTFUC71ON COST 1 $ 13,300,000 'CABG gait mRtribrtion franp-ewou9ya7p-orei p-ojarf �aplicaGm is $B4O11,8C0 Pirtertv2fren210,1l M Cmia, Ju,.12_aep 1. P,,ldi opinion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City Speedway City Date TFUI 2 � Prgrd: Taft �wal Flood 3udl Estimator TRfvl Task Checked By Task Na Check Dates HOR En,.,%1 r Alternate 913: 500 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall w/ Raised Road Devi ion Quantity Unit Price Total Comment5Scurce Unit I ISImit) Renovals Curti ag 25% $ 2300000 ineain 8% $ 800000 70TAL OP/Aff ON OF COAGTRJC71ON COST Pmenmt Rmwa 102m SY $ 500 $ 51,350 Sdevak Renwa 250 SY $ 400 $ 1000 Rmu,e Driveway Calvet 4 EA $ 225 $ 900 Sri & Sock leTO it 701 a $ 200 $ 5401 4" Lcvee FOOL rint asaraaim 34001 a $ 400 $ 136360 S foot rid dfill Renwe ST,tay S 470 LF $ 500 $ Z350 Tat o.M &amf NO Nine Rd Re,we &initay S Manhole 4 EA $ 500 $ zoco Renwe &Orm 53ve MmhddArealnld 2 EA $ 500 $ 1001 Renwe SOrm&jve 811 LF $ 500 $ 400 1 V Rmu,e & RdDuIdReplaaa Exi9i M Tres 10 EA $ 1,000 $ 1000 Tres nodh d Tate of church Lewin Partlmak Eathwmk Emhankment 116337 a $ 650 $ 756200 M% CM im falor R eadTDlXD11 zim a $ 200 $ 4320 Rdid Wels 16 EA $ 30000 $ 480000 Rdief.dispi.pumpted Tce Dran 540 LF $ 1800 $ 9,720 Tae dran fa laeemtadedrdid we area Flood v 11 Ra dl 1 LS $ Z9MMO $ Z9MffC Rm al Cd Ed. Flood Gae 3 EA $ mcoo $ 67500 Pavane t & Ulilily COMrudian CmI,ud &n,tay Sewer w / Bend 1901 LF $ MW $ 11400 Tat n.m &a No Nave Rd CmJrud &nitay &jve Manhole 4 EA $ 3500 $ 1400 Cmsruct &arm eve ManhddAr lnld 2 EA $ 2750 $ 5510 Furnish &Indal SuimGde 1 EA $ 20000 $ 20000 Cmdrud Ram& w/ Becdi N 80 LF $ WW $ 7200 V Cmsrud Sam& w/ Becdi nq 110 LF $ WW $ 9900 Acra Tat Within Dutu Right d Cmsrud&nit & aw /Baidi 1,320 LF $ WW $ 79800 South dTat Cmsrud&nit & aMan hale 4 EA $ 3500 $ 15,520 South dTat Cmsrud 8 " FCC P m.t TI[ Spexfw ay &NO Nave Rd 9860 SY $ 3 W $ 345100 rural saiim Cmsrud T' FCC Pmenm[ (Parking Ld & Driveways) 900 SY $ 5 W $ 45000 Cmsrud 6" FCC Sdevak 280 SY $ 3150 $ 8820 8'widetra1 Cmsrud Driveway Culvd 120 LF $ 80.01 $ 9600 30 "d. Extend CUlvds 25 LF $ 150 $ 3,750 TIt & DulWuea,eds Cmsrud 12 Wde Line 670 LF $ 197 $ 131%0 Al.nq No Nana CmsrudV Ware Line 2730 LF $ 190 $ 518700 A anq Tat SpeeWW Cmsrud6 "Waa Line 43o LF $ 88.01 $ 37840 NathofTat Cmsrud6"Wda Line 1,320 LF $ 190 $ 25 Z700 South d Tat M ixellanexs Overhead Power Rd xdi m 1 LS $ 85,000 $ 85,000 13 F et +4 NDN Poles to he rams S Ier Nmin q &rudum w / Wm &Wet 1 LS $ 300000 $ 2,300,000 Trefic Cmlrol 1 LS $ 3500 $ 3500 Erasm COdrd &It Fmm 8240 LF $ 225 $ low DmIffim 1 LS $ 50000 $ 5000 S l 5 AC $ 4500 $ 22610 Ea is en and f&mmmt 39210 S= $ 192 $ 75430 Idillwild Mabilizdian 8% 1 LS $ T33260 $ T33260 Curtin nae; 25% 1 LS $ 291420 $ 291420 ineai 8% 1 LS $ T33260 $ T33260 Total Cmars im Cod $ 12999040 OdnimdProbable Co tudim Cc4 blmmary Devi im Total $ Re,wds &Mis9lmn us $ 1,200,000 P e,.t &Btilities an4m¢ian $ 1700000 Lwee'Floadval Consrudion $ 4900000 Smmvae Wm Saion $ 2300000 Ea;ments $ 100000 Curti ag 25% $ 2300000 ineain 8% $ 800000 70TAL OP/Aff ON OF COAGTRJC71ON COST $ -13,300,000 'CABG q-ad mntribdion franp -ewaisya7p-orei p-ojed �plicatim is $B,811,8IX) �Mtl 21207W CmiS, lu,.12fienxlxlw Fgeh N O inion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of lava City Date 5- Jun -12 Prcject: Taft sway Flood Stull Estimator TRM L Task Checked By 1 �J Task No Check Dates HER Engneaing, Inc Alternate 9C: 100 -Year + 3' Combination Levee If Flood Wall O inimor Probable ConAructim Ca nnma Decription Total Ranwnls &Mixdlmeous $ moow Pena & UtilitiesCndrudion $ 1.300.000 Lwe !`I dl iefmdion $ 4100.000 Sonde- Pump Udion $ 2,300.000 �ecneds $ 100000 Conti da; s $ 2,000 WO iii $ 700000 TOTAL OHNION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 11,400,000 -CDBG Ora mtribotim/romXmmdyaWr prgW apphmhm isS8,011," Rinnn!u 012 10E3AM eos5ummary_Jine2a12_RepM xlo PSJP1 U1 O inion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of lava City Date 5- Jun -12 Project: Taft Amway Flood Study Estimator TRM L LT1� Task Checked By 1 Task Not Check Dates HoR Engnwing, Inc Alternate 9C: 100 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall Deacri Lion Quantity Unit Price Total $ Canmert56ource Unit $/unit Remwas $ 2000.000 irnoni 94 $ 700000 TOTAL OHNION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 11,400,000 end R.nwnl 3510 r $ 5 W $ 18200 Udavak Renwal 350 W $ 400 $ 1400 R. .Drivav CuNfft 2 FA $ 225 $ 450 Uri & Uoc il.T it 1,21D CY $ 200 $ 420 4" Levee FOOL -d Xoncm �aion 14,500 CY $ 400 $ 58000 3wfffool id offill Ranwe Scnitay Saver 80 LF $ 500 $ 400 Taff spoca.ay moss RorroveScnitarySmerManinde 2 FA $ 500 $ 1000 Rory. So. Savor M ainoIdArm l nld 1 FA $ 500 $ 500 Rory .So. Savor 80 LF $ 500 $ 400 V Ranove&RdomldR am FJllgl Try; 10 FA $ 1" $ 10000 Tnnmmnh OfTaBoa,IOf Church L. Earthwork Fadhwork 6nlalkmorll 2 ,%a CY $ 650 $ 168680 3094 mm ion factor RaoxcadlTo,,eul WO CY $ 2.00 $ 1990 Rdid Wills 16 FA $ 30.000 $ 480000 RelidwelspluspurnteJ Tce Drain 540 LF $ 1800 $ 9,720 Tce dmn forleveeoutude of Mid well am Floc 11 Momwal 1 LS $ 700916 $ 700916 Mmdwal COS Opinion Flom Gores 3 FA $ 225000 $ 675000 P moment& uOlityccestinmfi. Cordmtl Smil Savorw /Berri 100 I LF 1 $ man $ 6000 Taff Speedway mom COrdmct �Ita Savor Manhole 2 FA $ 3500 $ 7000 COrdmd So.�a- Mminold&calnld 2 FA $ 2,750 $ 5500 Fumn�&Ir al Sluice Gde 1 FA $ 2,Wo $ m," Co and Som Sava w/ Bcoduq 30 LF $ WW $ 700 V COrdmd Uom Savor w / Bondi 110 LF $ WW $ 9900 Am Tafi Within DuW mRi int COrdmct SmIfivy Savor w / Berri 1330 LF $ 60W $ N800 South of Taff Speedway COrdmct Smil Savor Manlnle 4 FA $ 3500 $ 15520 South of Taff Speedway COrdmct T P cnnunA (raft 3750 W $ 3540 $ 131,250 mrzl saiion COrdmd T P P cnnunl ParnM Ld & Drivew 180 W $ W W $ 9000 COrdmd T" Udewak 330 Sy $ 3150 $ 10400 Swid.lral COrdrud DnvmoyCu cd 40 LF $ WW $ 3,200 30 "e9_ Co ruct 12" Wdff Lim 670 I LF 1 $ 19700 $ 131990 Al No Nan. Co rust 12" Wdff Lim zm LF $ 19000 $ 518700 AlonqTaSpood w Co rust O 'Wolff Lim 430 LF $ m $ 37,840 Nodh dTafl Speedway Co rud 6' Wolff Lim 1330 LF $ 19000 $ M,700 South dTafl Speedway Mieailaneous ovorM Paver Rdotlion 1 LS $ 85000 $ 85000 13 Tell) +4 oNam Pdesto W rasm2 Uomrwder Ninpin Umdum w / Puff &oulld 1 LS $ 2300000 $ 300000 Tic COdml 1 LS $ 3500 $ 3500 F on COdml Sit Fmm 12000 LF $ 2.25 $ 27000 Do atop LS $ WWO $ Secolm 2 AG $ 4 500 $ 16116 F orals an act f6maenl ) 1 $ 2.75 $ 2,900 ldyllwild Mobilization 894 1 LS $ 623700 $ 623700 C Mi um 594 1 LS $ 1919010 $ 1919610 irnoni 94 1 LS $ 623700 $ 623700 Tdal Construction Cast $ 11 W6500 opinion d Probable Construction Cost 9lmmary Devi ion Ranwds &Mixdla us Total $ $ moom Pavff & Ulihh COa9rudion $ 1,300.000 Leveel icoftal Cordmdion $ 4100.000 Uonavdor PUm Uaion $ 2300.000 F oniti $ 100000 Conti um 594 $ 2000.000 irnoni 94 $ 700000 TOTAL OHNION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 11,400,000 - CDBGOra m ribotimfrompai.u9YaWr prgWa iimbmis$8,011,800 Ring: 9f192012 12 :m PM CosSUmmary_Jin¢a12_RepM xls2 Pa 1 a1 inion of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of Iowa City Date 5-Jun-12 Prciect: Taft Speedway Flood Study Estimator TRM Task Checked By IM Task No. Check Dates HDR Engn.i,, I m. Alternate 9D: 100 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall w/ Raised Road Opinion ct Probable Construction Cost &lmmary De iptim Total $ Removals &Mixd l aneous $ 1000000 Paimait& Utilities Cmstrudim $ 1.500.000 LweaFloodwall Cortlmction $ 4000.000 9ormwater Pum 99im $ 2300.000 F .ts $ 100.000 Conlin cics 2594 $ 2100.000 F inwnn % 700000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 11,700,000 -CDBG grant mvtribohm tranniarwioudyappro✓ xI project applimtim is $8, 011," Pima: fJ 01210r HM Cosl., lune2012_n ... 1aw Page 1 !1 union of Probable Construction Cost, Taft Speedway, Iowa City Client: City of Iowa City Date 5-Jun-12 Prcied: Taft Speaiway Flood Study Estimator TRM Task Checked By 1 L � Task No. Check Dates HDR Engn.i,, I m Alternate 9D: 100 -Year + 3' Combination Levee / Flood Wall wl Raised Road Desai tion Quantity Unit Price Total $ CanmentsBourc? Unit $ /unit Remwals En ineann °6 $ 700,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 11,700,000 Pwanad Removal 10630 SY $ 500 $ 53.150 Tads No Name Road Sidavdk Removal 350 SV $ 400 $ 1400 Foda 13.1incpi. Ranwe Dnry Culver) 4 EA $ 225 $ 900 Sri & Sock ileT l 2500 CY $ 200 $ 5,000 4' Lwee Fod rint OVaaravdion 3,120 CY $ 400 $ 12480 Toia-footi,initoffill Remove Sant Server im LF $ 500 $ 500 Taff Specdaiqr cnmin Remove Sant Servo- Machde 4 EA $ 500 $ 2000 Remove Storm SavaMmlioldAr.Inld 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Ranwe Storm Sava w LF $ 500 $ 400 V Ranwe &RdocdeR lacoftidin Tres; 10 EA $ 1000 $ 10,000 Tre. north ofTdt eui of church Levee Earthwork Earthwork Embankment 38250 CY $ 6% $ 248625 3096 compaction facto- Res re T soil 2000 CY $ 200 $ 4000 Relic Wdls 16 EA $ 30000 $ 480000 Reidwelsicluspunictml Toe Drain 540 LF $ 1800 $ 9720 Tcetlrain forlweeoutsideof rdidwell area Flaodwall Flcodwdl 1 LS $2574 70 $ 2,574,27D WHoiximidl COst Est. Flood Gat. 3 EA $ 225000 $ 675000 Pavened &Ufili Canbucfion Construct Sandayr Saaa-mil BoMinn 100 LF $ won $ 6000 Taff SpeodaiW cno in Construct Sandayr Sava Mantwle 5 EA $ 3500 $ 17,500 Construct Storm Siva M anholdArm Inlet 2 EA $ 2,750 $ 5500 Fumidi& Instal Sluice Gate 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20000 Construct storm Saver w /Baddin w LF $ 9000 $ 7,2M V Construct storm Saver wl Badding 11D LF $ 9000 $ 9,900 Acm.Tafi Within Dubuque RightcHv Construct Sanitary Serves w/ BoMinn 1,330 LF $ 6000 $ 79,800 South of Taff Spealway Construct Sanitary Serves Manlole 4 EA $ 3500 $ 15520 South of Taff Spealway Construct 8" MG Pavement CFaft 9,300 w $ 3500 $ 328300 Ininal section Construct T PCCPwement (Peskniil Lot &Dwm 670 SV $ 3500 $ 23450 Construct 6" MG Sidewalk 330 SV $ 3150 $ 10400 8'widstral Construct Dnwsway Culval 120 LF $ 8000 $ 9,600 30'ed. Construct l2'Wato- Line 6m LF $ 197 DO $ 131,990 Al onq No Name Construct 12' Wata Line 2,730 LF $ 10090 $ 518,700 Al. Taff Spealway Construct V Mai- Line 430 LF $ 8800 $ 37840 North of Taff Spealway Construct V Mai- Line 1,330 LF $ 19000 $ 2Si700 South of Taff Spealway Miscellaneous Ovah.d Paves Relocation 1 LS $ 85000 $ 85000 13 dl +q No Nane Pd. to WraisetlT Stormwato- Nni -n Shudurew /Pum &Outlet 1 LS $2300000 $ 2300000 Traffic Contml 1 LS $ 3500 $ 3500 Eroston Codrd Silt Farce 840 LF $ 225 $ 18510 Doadai 1 LS $ 50000 $ 50000 S niil 4 AC $ 4500 $ 18000 Easenaits en and PamaiaA 39210 SF $ 192 $ 75430 I (wild Modlization °6 1 LS $ 642 40 $ 642 40 Contni cics 2596 1 LS $ 2006980 $ 2006980 En incoin °6 1 LS $ 642 40 $ 642 40 Total Construction Coo $ 11 394775 Opinion d Probable Constructi on Cost Summary Desci-iptim Ranwds &Mixdlaneo. Total $ $ 1000.000 Pwanad& Olilili.Can9mdiw $ 1500000 LweaFlondwdl Consniction $ 4 000000 9ormwato- Nni Station $ 2300000 E cats $ 100000 Conlin cics 2596 $ 2,100,000 En ineann °6 $ 700,000 TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST $ 11,700,000 -COBG grant mvtribdim frmrprwioudyappro✓ed posed apphodim is $8, 011," Ring: 9f192012 12:09 PM CoslSUmmay lune2012_Repwdrw Pd 1 N1 IN (01 BLUE ZONES PROJECT" by HEALTHWAYS BLUE ZONES COMMUNITY POLICY PLEDGE The world we create for ourselves has an impact on our everyday lives — whether we're aware of it or not. Where we choose to live, work, play, and even the community of people with whom we spend our time, all influence the lifestyle choices we make. What if you had the opportunity to intentionally create a healthy city where the healthiest choices are also the easiest ones to make? Imagine a place where it's easy to eat fresh produce from grocery stores and farmers markets, not only because they're more affordable, but also because they're more accessible than fast food restaurants. Here it's easier to bike than drive, thanks to better bike lanes providing safe and direct access to work, shopping centers, and parks, all without the hassle of public parking. This community, designed for health and well- being, would also make it easier for our kids to play outside, with safe school playgrounds made available to the public during non - school hours. This is a city built for active living. It's an environment where city governments can support the health and vitality of citizens by carrying out policies that provide people with healthy opportunities, giving them a supportive nudge toward eating better and moving more naturally. Can such a community exist? Yes! WHAT IS THE BLUE ZONES PROJECT? Across the globe lie Blue Zones® areas, where people reach age 100 at an astonishing rate. Citizens of places like Sardinia, Italy; Okinawa, Japan; and Loma Linda, California, have maintained their healthy lifestyles for generations. The Blue Zones ProjectTU aims to adopt the lifestyle principles of these areas to transform American cities and towns into Blue Zones CommunitiesTM, where people can "live longer, better" lives. Our town is trying to become a Blue Zones CommunityT" Achieving that goal requires six community sectors to pledge and then act on their specific responsibilities. If each sector does its part, then we will all share the benefits of living in a community where well -being is a way of life. Becoming a Blue Zones Community requires: • At least 20% of citizens sign the Personal Pledge and complete one action. • At least 25% of public schools become a Blue Zones SchoolTM. • At least 50% of the top 20 community- identified employers become a Blue Zones WorksiteTM. • At least 25% of independently or locally owned restaurants become a Blue Zones RestaurantT" • At least 25% of grocery stores become a Blue Zones Grocery Storer'. • Completion of the Blue Zones® Community Policy Pledge. Blue Zones ProjecBu, Blue Zones Communhynv, Blue Zones WodcsheTU, Blue Zones School'u, Blue Zones Grocery Stare*", and Blue Zones Restaurant"" are vademarks of Blue Zones, LLC.All rights reserved. Copyright 0 2012 Blue Zones, I.I.C. All rights reserved. l( 1 BLUE ZONES PROJECT - by HEALTHWAYs BLUE ZONES COMMUNITY POLICY PLEDGE The Blue Zones Community Policy Pledge enables community leaders to promote these healthy lifestyle principles, creating a healthier environment for citizens to live, work, play, and thrive. Based on reviewed literature, the Blue Zones Project has identified policies that city governments can realistically implement to better support the health and well -being of its citizens. The policies recommended are a compilation of evidence- or theory-based policy recommendations published by the following sources: • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • Institute of Medicine • White House Task Force on Obesity • National Prevention Council • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation While we tried to choose policies that are directly under the control of city government, we realize the legal landscape is different in every community. Therefore, we recognize that some cities may not have jurisdiction over all policies recommended. The list is intended to be a menu from which communities can choose the policies that make sense for their unique environments. It is up to your town to determine what is feasible. ALIGN YOUR COMMUNITY POLICIES TO HELP BECOME A BLUE ZONES COMMUNITY Communities that meet certification criteria outlined below will earn recognition as a Blue Zones Community. Blue Zones certification recognizes communities that are in the top quintile for having adopted and implemented best practices. By taking the Blue Zones Community Policy Pledge, you're demonstrating your commitment to creating an environment of well -being for the people of your community, as well as your intentions to strive toward certification as a Blue Zones Community. committed to providing the best possible environment for students to learn and grow. BENEFITS FOR BLUE ZONES COMMUNITIES • Recognition for helping your community reach Blue Zones Community certification • Makes your community a more attractive destination for businesses and individuals Blue Zones ProjecF °, Blue Zones Community *a, Blue Zanes WorksfteT . Blue Zones SchuolTM, Blue Zones Grocery StoreTM, and Blue Zones RestauranPM are trademarks of Blue Zones, I.I.C. AN rights reserved. Copyright 0 2012 Blue Zones, LLLAll rights reserved. CERTIFICATION CRITERIA Complete the following criteria tofu If i I I the policy and build environment requirements for becoming a Blue Zones Community: e Earn at least 40% of the total points (13 points or more of 31 possible points) by adopting and enforcing Pledge actions. Implement at least one Pledge action from each category (Complete Streets, Tobacco Policy, and Healthy Eating and Active Living). • Implement at least two changes to the built environment that permanently change the environment to nudge people into healthier behaviors. INSTRUCTIONS 1. Register on the Blue Zones Project website (www.bluezonesproject.com) to begin the certification process. 2. Complete the Blue Zones Community Policy assessment by reviewing each item and checking those that your community is currently doing. 3. By registering and completing the assessment: I agree to ensure formal consideration for adoption of the actions as outlined in the Blue Zones Community Policy Pledge to achieve Blue Zones Community Certification. I agree to display a banner stating my participation in the Blue Zones Project. I agree to allow Healthways and Blue Zones to use the name of our community in their promotion of the Blue Zones Project. I agree to secure community buildings as meeting places for hosting Blue Zones Project events. 4. Select items you would like to implement in your community. See the supporting materials under "Tips, Tools and Resources" to help you get started. 5. Update your information online as you make progress. 6. Celebrate your achievements! Blue tones Protect -, Blue Zones Cmnmunityr-, Blue Zones WorksdeTM, Blue Zones khoolTM, Blue Zones Grocery SloreTM, and Blue Zones RestaurantrM are trademarks of Blue Zones, LLC AN right reserved. Copyright 0 2012 Blue Zones, LLC. All right reserved. BLUE ZONES PROJECT by HEALTHWAYS BLUE ZONES COMMUNITY POLICY PLEDGE ACTIONS CURRENTLY POINTS WILL DO COMPLETE STREETS POLICY Implement at least one option in this section. DOING 1. Pass a city resolution or ordinance to adopt Complete Streets principles. Resolution or ordinance must include all 10 elements of a comprehensive ❑ 2 ❑ Complete Streets Policy as defined by the National Complete Streets Coalition. 2. Staff in charge of design receive training in how to design complete streets. (You must pass a city resolution to adopt Complete Streets principles. ❑ 1 E] Resolution or ordinance must include all 10 elements of a comprehensive Complete Streets Policy as defined by the National Complete Streets Coalition). TOTAL POINTS COMPLETE STREETS POLICY: CURRENTLY POINTS WILL DO TOBACCO POLICY Implement at least one option in this section. DOING 1. Comprehensive smoke -free policy in all indoor workplaces and public places 1:1 2 El and Adopt a policy to address smoke -free multi -unit housing. 2. Comprehensive smoke -free policy in all indoor workplaces and public places El 3 El and Comprehensive smoke -free policy in all outdoor workplaces and public places. TOTAL POINTS TOBACCO POLICY: HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING POLICY Implement as many of the following options as possible in this section. 1. Adopt a Bicycle Master Plan that includes plans for accountability, implementation, and evaluation. 2. Adopt a Pedestrian Master Plan that includes plans for accountability, implementation, and evaluation. 3. Update zoning and building codes to encourage mixed -use development. 4. Adopt Form -Based Codes for the community or a sub -area of the community. 5. Adopt policies to promote outdoor dining. 6. Create a policy that facilitates joint use of facilities agreements (such as model joint use agreements). 7. Adopt building codes requiring showers, changing facilities, and bike racks in municipal buildings. 8. Adopt healthy vending standards in municipal buildings and public parks. 9. Create pricing incentives to increase affordability of healthier foods. CURRENTLY POINTS WILL DO DOING ❑ 3 ❑ ❑ 7 ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ Blue Zones pn0jWTM, Blue Zones Canmunitf ", Blue Zones WorksrteTM, Blue Zones Schoo", Blue Zones Grocery StoreTM, and Blue Zones Restaurant^" are trademarks of Blue Zone; LLC. All rights reserved. Copyright O 2012 Blue Zone%LLC.All rights reserved. �� BLUE ZONES PROJECT' by HEALTHWAYS TOTAL YOUR POINTS: POINTS 1. Complete Streets CURRENTLY POINTS WILL DO HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING POLICY, continued DOING 10. Increase access to fresh water drinking fountains. ❑ 1 ❑ 11. Restrict mobile vending of unhealthy foods near schools & public playgrounds. ❑ 1 ❑ 12. Create policies to increase Healthy Mobile Markets. ❑ 1 ❑ 13. Establish zoning to limit density and location of fast food establishments. ❑ 3 ❑ 14. Prohibit establishment of new fast food drive - thrus. ❑ 1 ❑ 15. Establish land use protections for community gardens and farmers markets. ❑ 16. Provide incentives to attract supermarketstgrocery stores to underserved neighborhoods. ❑ i ❑ 17. Establish a healthy food and beverage policy at city- sponsored youth sporting events. ❑ 1 ❑ 18. Adopt a written worksite breastfeeding policy that provides space and time for ❑ ❑ breastfeeding for city employees. TOTAL POINTS HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING POLICY: TOTAL YOUR POINTS: POINTS 1. Complete Streets 2. Tobacco Policy 3. Healthy Eating and Active Living *must be 13 or greater Blue Zones "earm, Not Zones CommunV -, Blue 2onesWorksReTm, Blue Zones khoolTM, Blue Zones Grocery Store* , and Blue Zones RestaurantTM are trademarks of Blue Zone; LLC. All right reserved. Copyright 0 2012 Blue Zone%LLC.All right reserved. COMMUNITY POLICY BUILT ENVIRONMENT CHANGES Implement at least two environmental changes that permanently change the environment to nudge people into healthier behaviors. Click on each action to learn more about what it is and tips for how to get started implementing it. n Complete at least one project from the Bicycle Master Plan. Please Describe: ❑ Complete at least one project from the Pedestrian Master Plan. Please Describe: ❑ Implement a Complete Streets project. Please Describe: ❑ Implement a Safe Routes to Schools project. Please Describe: Blue Zaes Project *M, Blue Zones CommunityrM, Blue tones WorkSiteTM, Blue Zones Schod'M, Blue Zones Grocery Store -, and Blue Zones Restaurant- are trademarks of Blue Zones, LLC. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 2012 Blue Zones, LLC. All rights reserved. BLUE ZONES COMMUNITY POLICY BUILT ENVIRONMENT CHANGES ❑ Implement a permanent strategy to enhance personal safety in areas where people are or could be physically active. Please Describe: ❑ Establish new community gardens. Please Describe: ❑ Complete at least one new Placemaking project that fulfills the Power of 10 criteria and includes the four key qualities of successful places as defined by Project for Public Spaces. Please Describe: ❑ Complete at least one new Urban Greening project. Please Describe: Blue Zones ProjecP, Blue Zones Communnyr °, Blue Zones Worksite*", Blue Zones SchoolTM, Blue Zones Grocery StareTM, and Blue Zones RestaurantTM are trademarks of Blue Zones, LLC.AII rights reserved. Copyright 0 2012 Blue Zones, LLC. All rights reserved. IP5 't UMIN �' a Z ""asap. CITY OF IOWA CITY PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS October 18, 2012 November 13, 2012 1. State Legislative update from the Davis Brown Law Firm 2. HAZMAT Presentation Pending Tonics to be Scheduled 1. Continue the discussion on the sale or dispersion of public housing units 2. Discussion pertaining to noise concerns voiced by residents of Ecumenical Towers 3. Discuss potential procedures and /or policies related to requests for habitable private spaces constructed over public right -of -way 4. Discuss the restaurant / drinking establishment separation distance provision of the City Code 5. Single use plastic bag ban �� CITY OF IOWA CITY ..,..� � MEMORANDUM Date: October 16, 2012 To: Mayor and City Council J From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Proposed Meeting & Budget Schedule First Quarter 2013 The proposed schedule is being presented for discussion at your October 23 work session. Please review your calendars and come prepared to discuss this proposal at that time. January 5, 8:OOAM- 5:OOPM, Saturday - Special Budget Work Session (departments) January 7, 1:OOPM- 7:OOPM, Monday- Special Budget Work Session (CIP) January 8, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM January 22, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM January 28, 5:OOPM, Monday February 5, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM February 19, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM March 5, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM March 19, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM U:budgetschedule2013.doc L IP6 Z - Special Work Session (routine business) - Special Formal (routine business) - Special Work Session (routine business) - Special Formal (routine business) - Special Budget Work Session - Regular Work Session - Regular Formal - Regular Work Session - Regular Formal (set public hearing on budget) - Regular Work Session - Regular Formal (public hearing and adoption of budget) - Regular Work Session - Regular Formal CITY OF IOWA CITY - MEMORANDUM DATE: October 17, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk fk6 RE: Additional Meeting Requests Area Legislators Typically the City Council meets with area legislators prior to the start of the session to identify legislative priorities for the upcoming session. Invitations to area legislators generally have offered three possible times and dates. Options have included prior to the start of a work session; Saturday morning; or a separate day early in the morning or later in the afternoon. Once dates and times have been identified I will contact area legislators (shortly after the election) to confirm one of the options, and report back to you. Possible dates: Monday, December 10 Tuesday, December 11 Thursday, January 3 College /Gilbert Development Proposals The internal committee anticipates completing their work in early November. Staff is recommending that a separate work session be set aside to hear presentations from the finalists. It is anticipated this meeting could last 3 -31/2 hours. A brief comment period will be provided later for the public to offer their opinions on the proposals prior to Council action on December 18. Possible dates: Monday, November 26 Monday, December 3 Please bring your calendar to the work session on October 23 for a discussion regarding times and dates. U:add imeetings2012. doc 'C OP IP8 ,r 1 x111 h, aft October 17, 2012 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 Ms. Mary Gravitt (3 19) 356 -5000 2714 Wayne Ave. Apt. 6 (3 1 9) 356 -5009 FAX Iowa City, IA 52240 www.icgov.org Ms. Gravitt, I wanted to send you a response to your comments and concerns that you expressed at the October 2, 2012 City Council Meeting regarding the Broadway Route detour. We are aware of the inconvenience caused by this detour and the additional passengers that are now utilizing the Mall Route. Prior to determining a detour for the Broadway, we ran multiple scenarios in order to try to minimize the impact of the detour on our customers. One of our scenarios was to turn East on to HWY 6 as normal, bypass Sycamore Street and turn left onto First Avenue. We then turned left from First Avenue to Lower Muscatine Road, proceeded past Kirkwood Community College, turned left onto Sycamore Street and then took an immediate right onto Highland Avenue where the normal route resumed. Through these attempts we determined that we would not be able to maintain the thirty minute schedule of the current Broadway. I am sure that you are aware of the limited options in accessing Highland Avenue from HWY 6, which resulted in our decision to utilize Keokuk Street for our Broadway detour. November 1 is still the target for opening up Sycamore Street at which time we will resume the normal Broadway service. Thank you for taking the time to reach out to us about concerns that you have related to our transit system. I have included my phone number below in case you have any additional questions that you would like to discuss. Sincerely, c� 04— Chris O'Brien Director of Transportation Services City of Iowa City (319)356 -5156 Chris - obrien @iowa - city.org 29th Annual Iowa City Human Rights Commission Award. Breakfast Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:15 -8:30 AM (7:30 -8:30 - program) Amos Dean Ballroom, Sheraton Hotel Keynote Speaker: Chad Simmons Executive Director, Diversity Focus The following Individuals will be recognized: Tom Widmer (Isabel Turner Award) David Leshtz (Unda Severson Award) Cliff Missen (International Award) Joan Vanden Berg (Rick Graf Award) Robin E. Armstrong (Kenneth Cmlel Award) University of Iowa Center for Human Rights (Community Award) Tickets are $25 and may be purchased at the Cashier's Desk at City Hall (410 E. Washington) or by calling 356 -5022. To purchase tickets by credit card contact 319- 356 -5066. *Tickets must be purchased by October 26th. *Tickets must be purchased in advance. P] IP10 I I 111E BND BU Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1 as of Regional News 7:14 AM ET Coralville, Iowa, Water and Sewer Debt Slashed by: Yvette Shields Tuesday, October 16, 2012 Coralville's fiscal struggles drove Moody's Investors Service to sharply downgrade the Iowa city's water and sewer revenue bond ratings. Moody's last week dropped its rating on the city's water enterprise revenue bonds by three levels due to close relationship and intermingling of funds between the city and enterprise system. The agency lowered its rating on $1.5 million of debt down to A3 from Aa3 and warned of further action by assigning a negative outlook. The bonds are secured by net revenues of the system. "The utility is an open -loop system, which allows fund transfers and loans between it and the city. Such support of the city, which has occurred in recent years via loans from the water enterprise to other funds, limits the system's ability to maintain adequate reserve levels," Moody's said. The system also has limited liquidity with essentially no unrestricted cash. The system's credit benefits from a favorable service area near Iowa City, home of the University of Iowa, and an unlimited ability for rate increases. Moody's also downgraded to A3 from Al its rating on Coralville's sewer bonds and dropped its short-term rating to MIG 2 from MIG 1. A negative outlook was assigned. The city has $4.4 million of sewer system bonds and $2.5 million of short-term notes. Debt service is secured by the net revenues of the system. "The downgrade to A3 primarily reflects the system's interrelationship with city, which is highly leveraged, has limited liquidity and is exposed to significant enterprise risk," Moody's analysts wrote. The MIG 2 rating reflects analysts' expectation that the city will continue to experience satisfactory capital market access in order to redeem its short-term notes and bank loans. Moody's earlier this year downgraded Coralville's unlimited -tax general obligation rating to A3 from Aa2, annual appropriation GO bonds and certificates of participation to Baa2 from A1, and short-term rating on the Series 2010H and Series 2011 G bond anticipation notes to MIG 2 from MIG 1. The city has $63.5 million of outstanding long -term unlimited -tax GO debt, $54.4 million of outstanding annual appropriation GO debt, $65.1 million of outstanding certificates of participation, and $10.6 million of outstanding short-term Bans backed by Coralville's GO pledge. The outlook remains negative. The past downgrades reflect the underperformance of a city -owned hotel, which has not met its original cash -flow projections, leading to reliance on the city's highly leveraged mall tax - increment fund for debt service payments. JIM , SPummo © 2012 The Bond Buyer and SourceMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved. SourceMedia is an Investcorp company. Use, duplication, or sale of this service, or data contained herein, except as described in the Subscription Agreement, is strictly prohibited. IP71 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT REPORT July 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012 Finance Department Prepared by: Brian Cover Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. The rolling average return on the six -month U.S. Treasury Bill for the prior 365 days was 0.10% at 9/30/12. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate of return on the City's entire portfolio for the quarter was 0.45% which is 35 basis points higher than the threshold. (See exhibit A) Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the first quarter of this fiscal year had an average return of 0.26 %. Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the first quarter were approximately 12 basis points lower than investments purchased at this time last year. Municipalities in Iowa are still having trouble finding financial institutions willing to accept public funds. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. In the September meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the decision was made to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted at least through mid -2015. (See exhibit B) The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed. New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this quarter were 0.05% in July, 0.05% in August, and 0.05% in September 2012. Q m_ w U — m o o � o � U co ca � o � � aS co L L, x'`71 LL,4C, V OL,a 3 a0 OL,�, o aS O Oz ,4 V OL'4� 7T 6 O�aa 6 O 0, co N o m 0 "It N o aS �- 0 0 0 0 0 uanloa jo OBBluoo.iod Q m_ w aje�j Isajaju l S 4-0 r IL aa0 ca � 0L, as LL 01 q 01'� 60'aa O S0'aa 0 o o S aje�j Isajaju l CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 9/30/2012 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 13- Jun -02 N/A $ 3,000,000.00 VARIABLE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 12- May -09 N/A $ 4,000,000.00 VARIABLE IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 28- Oct -09 N/A $ 4,000,000.00 VARIABLE HILLS BANK MONEY MARKET 30- Mar -10 N/A $ 9,290,781.67 VARIABLE WELLS FARGO SAVINGS 20- Apr -10 N/A $ 10,000,000.00 VARIABLE WELLS FARGO SAVINGS 20- Apr -10 N/A $ 15,000,000.00 VARIABLE IPAIT 2006A GO IPAIT 17- Apr -09 N/A $ - VARIABLE IPAIT 2007 GO IPAIT 11- Dec -09 N/A $ 887,881.36 VARIABLE IPAIT 2008 GO IPAIT 15- Jul -09 N/A $ 1,895,575.94 VARIABLE IPAIT 2009 D GO IPAIT 12- Jun -09 N/A $ - VARIABLE IPAIT 2009 C GO IPAIT 12- Jun -09 N/A $ 1,188,997.24 VARIABLE IPAIT 2010 B GO IPAIT 12- Aug -10 N/A $ 2,163,585.90 VARIABLE IPAIT 2011 A GO IPAIT 08- Jun -11 N/A $ 3,640,492.67 VARIABLE IPAIT 2012 A GO IPAIT 20- Jun -12 N/A $ 7,831,559.34 VARIABLE AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CD 12- Dec -08 12- Dec -13 $ 6,197,315.00 3.750 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 12- Dec -08 12- Dec -13 $ 2,000,000.00 4.180 UICCU CD 28- Jun -10 26- Jun -15 $ 846,700.00 2.510 UICCU CD 28- Jun -10 26- Jun -15 $ 300,000.00 2.510 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Oct -11 19- Oct -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.380 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Oct -11 12- Oct -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.350 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Oct -11 05- Oct -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.320 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10- Nov -11 26- Oct -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.300 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 10- Nov -11 02- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.350 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 18- Nov -11 15- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.310 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 18- Nov -11 09- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.300 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Dec -11 14- Dec -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.310 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Dec -11 21- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.260 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Dec -11 30- Nov -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.280 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Dec -11 07- Dec -12 $ 2,000,000.00 0.290 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Jan -12 04- Jan -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.280 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 19- Jan -12 11- Jan -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.330 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Jan -12 02- Jan -13 $ 1,290,000.00 0.270 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Jan -12 03- Dec -12 $ 1,135,000.00 0.260 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 27- Feb -12 27- Feb -14 $ 2,112,014.00 0.450 WELLS FARGO BANK CD 27- Feb -12 27- Feb -14 $ 450,000.00 0.450 UICCU CD 9- Mar -12 01- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.285 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 9- Mar -12 08- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.335 CR BANK & TRUST CD 29- Mar -12 22- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.340 CR BANK & TRUST CD 29- Mar -12 28- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.360 CR BANK & TRUST CD 29- Mar -12 31- May -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.380 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 13- Apr -12 15- Mar -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.270 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 13- Apr -12 05- Apr -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.330 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 13- Apr -12 12- Apr -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.370 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 13- Apr -12 31- May -13 $ 2,500,000.00 0.415 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 13- Apr -12 01- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.460 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 27- Apr -12 05- Apr -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.260 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 27- Apr -12 12- Apr -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.280 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 27- Apr -12 19- Apr -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.300 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 27- Apr -12 26- Apr -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.320 UICCU CD 15- May -12 03- May -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.315 UICCU CD 15- May -12 10- May -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.335 UICCU CD 15- May -12 31- May -13 $ 3,000,000.00 0.355 UICCU CD 15- May -12 01- Jul -13 $ 750,000.00 0.365 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 29- Jun -12 07- Jun -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.305 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 29- Jun -12 14- Jun -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.355 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 29- Jun -12 21- Jun -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.405 UICCU CD 20- Jul -12 12- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.396 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 9/30/2012 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE UICCU CD 20- Jul -12 05- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.376 UICCU CD 20- Jul -12 19- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.416 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 24- Aug -12 26- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.410 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 24- Aug -12 02- Aug -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.290 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 24- Aug -12 09- Aug -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.430 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 24- Aug -12 16- Aug -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.310 CR BANK & TRUST CD 24- Aug -12 01- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.280 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Sep -12 30- Aug -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.300 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Sep -12 23- Aug -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.270 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Sep -12 06- Sep -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.330 TOTAL $ 161,479,903.12 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 6/30/12 $ 171,755,840.48 INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST INSTITUTION TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE PURCHASES 7/01/12 TO 9/30/12 UICCU CD 20- Jul -12 12- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.396 UICCU CD 20- Jul -12 05- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.376 UICCU CD 20- Jul -12 19- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.416 WELLS FARGO SAV 25- Jul -12 $ 15,000,000.00 0.150 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 24- Aug -12 26- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.410 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 24- Aug -12 02- Aug -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.290 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 24- Aug -12 09- Aug -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.430 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 24- Aug -12 16- Aug -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.310 CR BANK & TRUST CD 24- Aug -12 01- Jul -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.280 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Sep -12 30- Aug -13 $ 1,000,000.00 0.300 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Sep -12 23- Aug -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.270 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Sep -12 06- Sep -13 $ 2,000,000.00 0.330 TOTAL PURCHASES $ 34,000,000.00 REDEMPTIONS 7/01/12 TO 9/30112 WELLS FARGO CD 24- May -11 01- Jul -12 $ (500,000.00) 0.650 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Apr -11 02- Jul -12 $ (500,000.00) 0.700 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 20- Jun -12 N/A $ (4,989,908.49) VARIABLE IPAIT 2006 GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 17- Apr -09 N/A $ (109,639.62) IPAIT 2007 GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 11- Dec -09 N/A $ (612.00) IPAIT 2008 GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 15- Jul -09 N/A $ (30.98) IPAIT 2010 B GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12- Aug -10 N/A $ (5.00) IPAIT 2011 A GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 08- Jun -11 N/A $ (21,576.85) IPAIT 2012 A GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 20- Jun -12 N/A $ (103,735.49) IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 08- Apr -11 N/A $ (15,000,000.00) VARIABLE IPAIT 2009 D GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12- Jun -09 N/A $ (213,030.50) MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Aug -11 27- Jul -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.350 IPAIT 2011 A GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT O8- Jun -11 N/A $ (72,757.84) IPAIT 2012 A GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 20- Jun -12 N/A $ (103,899.59) MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Aug -11 03- Aug -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.400 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11- Aug -11 10- Aug -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.400 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 28- Oct -09 N/A $ (6,000,000.00) MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Sep -11 24- Aug -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.400 IPAIT 2011 A GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 08- Jun -11 N/A $ (162,312.98) IPAIT 2012 A GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 20- Jun -12 N/A $ (155,379.00) MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Sep -11 07- Sep -12 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.350 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 28- Oct -09 N/A $ (5,000,000.00) IPAIT 2007 GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 11- Dec -09 N/A $ (8,051.74) IPAIT 2009 D GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12- Jun -09 N/A $ (135,218.06) IPAIT 2010 B GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 12- Aug -10 N/A $ (179,873.15) IPAIT 2011 A GO BONDS (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) IPAIT 08- Jun -11 N/A $ (19,906.07) MIDWESTONE BANK CD 19- Sep -11 31- Aug -12 $ (1,000,000.00) 0.400 TOTAL REDEMPTIONS $ (44,275,937.36) INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 9/30/12 $ 161,479,903.12 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND FUND TYPE ALL OPERATING FUNDS GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND BOND RESERVE FUND TOTAL CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION 9/30/12 9/30/11 INVESTMENT INVESTMENT AMOUNT AMOUNT $135,898,874.12 $136,839,530.13 $ 7,635,000.00 $ 17,970,230.94 $ 17,946,029.00 $ 14,228,804.00 $161,479,903.12 $169,038,565.07 TOTAL $161,479,903.12 $169,038,565.07 9/30/12 9/30/11 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT DEPOSITORY NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT LIMIT BANK OF THE WEST $ - $ 75,000,000.00 BANKER'S TRUST $ - $ 11,085,230.94 N/A CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST $ 7,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK $ - $ - $ 15,000,000.00 FIRST AMERICAN BANK $ - $ - $ 35,000,000.00 FREEDOM SECURITY BANK $ - $ - $ 15,000,000.00 HILLS BANK & TRUST $ 9,290,781.67 $ 9,290,781.67 $ 25,000,000.00 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST $ 28,608,092.45 $ 55,233,537.46 N/A LIBERTY BANK $ - $ - $ 25,000,000.00 MIDWESTONE BANK $ 62,925,000.00 $ 41,800,000.00 $ 75,000,000.00 TWO RIVERS BANK $ 9,197,315.00 $ 6,197,315.00 $ 10,000,000.00 U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION $ 16,896,700.00 $ 7,146,700.00 $ .50,000,000.00 US BANK $ - $ - $ 65,000,000.00 US TREASURY NOTES AND AGENCIES $ - $ - N/A WELLS FARGO BANK $ 27,562,014.00 $ 34,285,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 WEST BANK $ - $ - $ 35,000,000.00 TOTAL $161,479,903.12 $169,038,565.07 dd�ddn� nnnnnn�n��r�rzrzr�tz��a�y C G 53" ' N � 0 rD O cn 0 p n 0 0 u O !D � � O O O _t ' � � O CD O 7 D m Ci (D M O td O 0 0 a' 0 2 � 0 tIy y q x c P 4 Q� g d � � N G Z I-d 0 rD 0• N _ I-d n o '3 O W Un 0 V " D fn C a. y Co O N G 0� � fD G O ^N . O cr N u O CN G Oo cn 0 �vR � N 0 n G= o O 7 N N -' 3 td � O rat u � � J t `C n G c 0 a eD Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z w Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :3 0 m:3 0 0 p 0 m�3 0 0 n�l 0 m 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� 0 0 0 p�� 0 0 N O U) o V) 0 fn 0 w 0 V) 0 fn 0 (n 0� !% 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 (n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U" o✓ Cr, o+ 0' a' a' a' a, a' a' a' a• a' a• a' a' a' a' C7, (7' a' V V a' a' o+ V a' Cr' a+ cr a' W V) V) M V) (rD� V) (rD� (n (rD� 'n (r�D h rt !/ (r�D (n (D V) nr� fn n fn rnr� fn rnr� V) rnr� En n C/) nr� V) Fnr� M nr� (/ nr� U) rnr� U) nr� cn nI-� M nr� f/) nr� w rnr� m 0r� w nr� Vi rnr� N rnr� w nr� w nr� C a C a C a C a C a C (D a C (D a G (D a rD o C (D Cl- C (D a. C (D a C rn 0- C (D 0- C (D 0- C (D 0- C (D a. C (D a. C (D a C (D a C tD a C tD Cl- C (D Cl- C (D a. C (D a. C (D a. C (e a. C (D a. C (D a, C (D a, C rn a, C (e a. C (D a. C o a O y �'+ 3 cn a a� fn o cD o Q, rn a. ias ...a . ,. ..... . :7, old i Z i 0 N L CD O o rn n (n n ?1 O CD_ 3 cD (D CD 0 � O � wO N N N -0 7 O O r+ 0 N p(D 0Z '�- �g444o -� o 0 0 o 5n^�G�G h 00I •. • )0o O T1�li11�71�71�1�1�- t'c � a-o O o O O m m n N � O p c �rjC)td ; y o �' o �' n o I'D O h 73 io �' G� Q CD o rt R- n lD �n m Q A "' 6D. cn V _ n `D' y CD o o Z 0 ° �i �' 7y CD u NO ti AD rD .N fD F fD i� u o O r 'n �• cn r, V' `� a. ry P� 0 ��' c`1„ N O N OJT `� ON �p N 0�0 G� O `J t7' O ,� N �o �. 3 C ) 0 v� 7 a fD u �' .� N u O �1 u O D' G CC N � C) G fD oo �• n rt O .3 !. O n u N 0 p?t O rn w rD = � LLO a cn rD N N N O O CD O 00 u r 0 0o v p u T3 72 a cn a n (_ m a 'C v N O cn td N cn Cn J O J Oo � t H cm N a CD ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S. 4. S. . �. �. �. �. S. �. �. �. 4. S. �. �. �. �. S. �. �. 4. �. 4. �. 4. �. S. S. S. S. �. �. S. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a? a? a w w w a? � a. � a. � a. � a. � a. � a. w a. a a. � a. � a. � a. ; a. � a. � a. w a. w a. O O a o a 0 a 0 w 0 0 0 o 0 m 0 w 0 0 0 w 0 w 0 m 0 a 0 m 0 m 0 a 0 o 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 cn 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 m 0 w 0 m O Cr o Cr 0 Cr 0 Cr 0 Cr 0 Cr 0 Cr 0 a• 0 a• 0 Cr 0 a• 0 a• 0 Cr 0 a' 0 a' 0 a' 0 a' 0 a' 0 a 0 cr 0 cr 0 cr 0 a' 0 o' fn 0 cr Ch 0 cr (n 0 a• (n 0 a• cn 0 a• W 0 a• fn 0 a• (n 0 a• 0 0 a• Vi 0 a, (n 0 a• (n 0 a• cn 0 a• fn 0 a• (n V1 V1 fn V1 fn V1 W N M In (n cn [n (n w w fn fn VI 91 V1 Vi !n fD aaaaaaaaaa.a.a.a . fD . (D . fD . CD . fD . CD . CD . CD . CD CD . fD . CD . fD a- . CD 0- . fD CLa.aa.a..a- . (D . fD . fD . fD . !D . fD as.a.a..a.aaa- . fD fD . fD . fD . CD . CD . fD . CD . CD in- . CD P- . CD . CD CD . fD a. . CD P-0- . CD . t o cn y U) in cn ad � y O <D O Q rn a r;a - et i i r z :Z W d S i 130 Z 10Z +I3 a It 9 Z tZ Wd S 1 130 , I' GZ ��d �dIt "Cl 1-d - -oo o o- G c by cn x O y c7 b� N• °- �- G 00 o_ 0 A y CD 3 71 R° 3 u � R° CD a p ^o CD ID Og O �-. u �� Ds CD A O u a01 00 rf .`�i CD N phi N CO Q CN n v CD u c W N u 73 fr t �C n y c a a eD ZZZZZZZZ�QL_ZZZZZZZZZZ ,cn O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl I'D o 0 0 0 0 0 o a' a' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI. a. Fr. h 0 a 0 0 0 �3 O 0 O 0 O �3 O O �3 0 �3 0 �3 0 �3 0 �3 0 0 o 0 0 �3 0 �) 0 �) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U CD ' C CD CD CD CD 'I CD ' �D CD n CD U, rD cn n ul �aaaaa.aaa. aaa.aaaa.aaa C 0 y 3 o o� a� N G-. Q 0'q , U.:j .� CD r Uq m o d N � N m� 0 0 a n 0 OrQ t ti 0 A N s 0 A 60 �� C7 o CD C) �' C w- c^Nn o y z " CD n rat td C n '� ° 0 d 0 0q3) cn n CD (_n 0 ( ) Q' o �,`D �. lb u V cn A� o o � °f m fir L .0 n w e H v cn a e� ZZZZZZZZZZZZgizz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' 0 �r 0 w p a. p a. a. 5 a. w�3' a. a. �5- a. a a. w a. a a. ��3' a. a. a. a. 0 a 0 cn a w w w w w n N N N N N N N N � N N m �• N N o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 a- cr cr cr ul ul a, ul cr cr (71 cr o Cr Cr N rCD N CrD� m frD� N !rD� N CrrD�� N FCr�D� N CrD� N frrD�� N (rr�D� N rCr��D N FCr��D m CrrD�� Ft N lrrtD� N CrrD�� CD a. CD a. f� a. CD a. CD Cl- CD a fD a. fD a. CD a. CD a. CD Cl- fD Cl- '� �* fD aL CD a. o v rt y 0 0' 3 a °0 d a � a 0 n � a a. as a C L L Flo L L C L F L L Ev L L E L L F. Fv E L L L L IV L Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - September, 2012 u a r Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21`6116tges ' Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Piloil]ce Activity rf,. t�. 7 IP13 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Und Checks er2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks U n d e r2 l PAULA Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) 2 Dogs Pub 120 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Airliner 223 1 0 0 110 6 32 0.0545455 0.2909091 Airliner 223 5 3 0 110 6 32 0.0545455 0.2909091 American Legion 140 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Aoeshe Restaurant 156 0 0 0 Atlas World Grill 165 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 lBaroncini— 0 0 0 Basta 176 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Blackstone— 297 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 (Blue Moose— 436 3 0 0 149 24 6 0.1610738 0.0402685 (Blue Moose— 436 12 5 0 149 24 6 0.1610738 0.0402685 (Bluebird Diner 82 0 0 0 I Bob's Your Uncle *" 260 0 0 0 ]Bo -James 200 9 0 0 77 4 1 0.0519481 0.0129870 ]Bread Garden Market & Bakery 0 0 0 ]Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 15 2 0 347 139 48 0.4005764 0.1383285 ]Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 13 3 0 347 139 48 0.4005764 0.1383285 ]Brown Bottle, [The]— 289 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 ]Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar— 189 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 ]Cactus Mexican Grill 0 0 0 ICaliente Night Club 498 2 0 0 35 3 2 0.0857143 0.0571429 ]Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92 1 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 (Carlos O'KeIIy's— 299 0 0 0 ]Chili Yummy Yummy Chili 1 0 0 17 6 0 0.3529412 0 ]Chipotle Mexican Grill— 119 0 0 0 Thursday, October 11, 2012 Page 1 of 5 ❑Clinton St Social Club 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 W Clinton St Social Club 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ❑Club Car, [The] 56 0 0 0 ❑ Coach's Corner 160 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 ❑Colonial Lanes— 502 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ❑ Dave's Foxhead Tavern 87 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ❑ DC's 120 8 0 1 174 48 10 0.2758621 0.0574713 ❑d DC's 120 15 4 0 174 48 10 0.2758621 0.0574713 W-1 Deadwood, [The] 218 3 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 ❑Deadwood, [The] 218 2 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 ❑ Devotay— 45 0 0 0 ❑Donnelly's Pub 49 2 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 ❑Donnelly's Pub 49 3 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 ❑d Dublin Underground, [The] 57 5 0 0 44 1 0 0.0227273 0 ❑Dublin Underground, [The] 57 1 0 0 44 1 0 0.0227273 0 ❑Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 315 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑EI Banditos 25 0 0 0 - ) El El Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 ❑EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 104 0 0 0 r ❑EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 161 0 0 0 ❑ Elks #590, [BPO] 205 0 0 0 ❑EnglertTheatre— 838 0 0 0 ❑Fieldhouse 178 6 0 0 153 36 7 0.2352941 0.0457516 WFieldhouse 178 8 2 2 153 36 7 0.2352941 0.0457516 []First Avenue Club— 280 0 0 0 ❑Formosa Asian Cuisine— 149 0 0 0 ❑Gabes 261 1 0 0 47 7 3 0.1489362 0.0638298 El George's Buffet 75 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 ❑Givanni's' 158 0 0 0 ❑Godfather's Pizza— 170 0 0 0 ❑Graze"' 49 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ❑Grizzly's South Side Pub 265 0 0 0 9 1 0 0.1111111 0 ❑Hilltop Lounge, [The] 90 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Thursday, October 11, 2012 Page 2 of 5 ❑ IC Ugly's 72 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 F-1 India Cafe 100 0 0 0 F-1 Iron Hawk 0 0 0 ❑Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 71 0 0 0 ❑lobsite 120 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 WJoe's Place 281 8 1 0 85 3 0 0.0352941 0 ❑Joe's Place 281 2 0 0 85 3 0 0.0352941 0 OJoseph's Steak House- 226 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ❑Leaf Kitchen 0 0 0 ❑Linn Street Cafe 80 0 0 0 ❑Los Portales 161 0 0 0 d❑Martini's 200 8 1 0 192 50 2 0.2604167 0.0104167 ❑Martini's 200 7 3 0 192 50 2 0.2604167 0.0104167 ❑Masala 46 0 0 0 El Mekong Restaurant- 89 0 0 0 ❑Micky's- 98 1 0 0 38 0 2 0 0.0526316 d Micky's- 98 ❑ 7 0 0 38 0 2 0 0.0526316 WWI Restaurant, [The]- 325 3 2 0 29 2 0 0.0689655 0 El Moose, [Loyal Order of] 476 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑ Motley Cow Cafe 82 0 0 0 ❑Noodles & Company- 0 0 0 ❑Okoboji Grill- 222 0 0 0 v Old Capitol Brew Works 294 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 ❑d One- Twenty -Six 105 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 ❑Orchard Green Restaurant- 200 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 87 0 0 0 ❑Pagliai's Pizza- 113 0 0 0 W Panchero's (Clinton St)- 62 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)- 95 0 0 0 ❑Pints 180 3 0 0 180 38 4 0.2111 0.0222222 WPints 180 11 1 1 180 38 T ry 4 Q;11]31 4- x00222222 ❑ Pit Smokehouse- 40 0 0 0,w F1 Pizza Hut- 116 0 0 0 iz Thursday, October 11, 2012 Page 3 of 5 ❑ Pizza Ranch- 226 0 0 0 ❑d Players f, 114 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 0 ❑Quality Inn /Highlander 971 0 0 0 ❑d Quintr''S13 DIl �A'`£ � } 149 4 0 0 23 1 0 0.0434783 0 El Ridge Pub ,SS : "' � 0 0 0 q r a ❑ Riverside T6�atre`' 118 0 0 0 OSaloon 120 2 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 ❑Saloon 120 1 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 F-1 Sam's Pizza 174 0 0 0 10 1 2 0.1 0.2 WSam's Pizza 174 2 0 0 10 1 2 0.1 0.2 (]Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 132 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 ❑Shakespeare's 90 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 ❑ Sheraton 0 0 0 ❑d Short's Burger & Shine- 56 4 0 0 21 0 2 0 0.0952381 ❑Short's Burger Eastside 0 0 0 W Sports Column 400 9 1 1 182 44 22 0.2417582 0.1208791 ❑V Studio 13 206 9 1 0 52 8 1 0.1538462 0.0192308 ❑Studio 13 206 4 0 0 52 8 1 0.1538462 0.0192308 Summit. [The] 736 11 3 3 242 50 48 0.2066116 0.1983471 ❑Summit. [The] 736 2 0 0 242 50 48 0.2066116 0.1983471 ❑Sushi Popo 84 0 0 0 ❑Takanami Restaurant- 148 0 0 0 ❑TCB 250 2 0 0 125 10 1 0.08 0.008 OTCB 250 1 0 0 125 10 1 0.08 0.008 ❑Thai Flavors 60 0 0 0 ❑Thai Spice 91 0 0 0 ❑Times Club @ Prairie Lights 60 0 0 0 ❑I Trumpet Blossom Cafe 94 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Union Bar 854 15 4 0 267 84 37 0.3146067 0.1385768 F-1 Union Bar 854 14 3 0 267 84 37 0.3146067 0.1385768 ❑VFW Post #3949 197 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑Vine Tavern, [The] 170 1 0 0 47 3 8 0.0638298 0.1702128 W-Wine Tavern, [The] 170 5 0 2 47 3 8 0.0638298 0.1702128 Thursday, October 11, 2012 Page 4 of 5 ❑Wig & Pen Pizza Pub— 154 DYacht Club, [Iowa City]— 206 ❑Z'Mariks Noodle House 47 Totals Off Premise Grand Totals * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 ordinance 0 0 0 11 3 0 89 7 2 0.0786517 0.0224719 0 0 0 283 46 10 5270 1081 448 0.2051233 0.0850095 0 0 45 0 0 197 0 0 55 645 r� Ca ^� _ ---i C—) �� a- •'s;ka t F P ' Thursday, October 11, 2012 Page 5 of 5 October 8, 2012 IOWA DISTRICT EAST IP14 THE LUTHERAN CHURCH -- MISSOURI SYNOD Dear Members of the Historic Preservation Commission in Iowa City: 1100 Blairs Ferry Rd Marion IA 52302 -3093 319.373.2112 We received your letter concerning the,property.at 404 E -. Jefferson Street and the desire to list this property in an OHO `zone. The informatibn you sent to us . is very helpful and assisted- us . greatly in our discussions over this matter. The St. Paul Lutheran Chapel congregation meets at this property. The building is gwned,by, the 121 congregations of The Iowa District East of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri. Synod.. Our district headquarters are located in Marion, Iowa. St. Paul Lutheran Chapel. h:as .served . the University of Iowa students and the foreign mission field with the Word of God and His Blessed Sacraments for 86 years. It is a ministry we value with great interest and support. Our concern over the property becoming part of an -OHP zone is founded on the potential financial obligations due to repairs of the property. While we respect the historic nature of that part of Iowa City and appreciate its scenic value, we do not support this request for an OHP _zone., It. is . stated in. your. information* that .97.5% of applications are granted as prop'osed'; we do , riot. want to -find . ourselves- in the .2.5 0/6 and experience higher cost of repairs /replacements, due to historic retention. We believe our ministry there is far more valuable than esthetics and would not want to see our work prohibited for lack of funds because of increased cost due to the OHP zone. We -thank you for the opportunity to express our objection to the proposal and pray that you give our concerns due consideration. We ask the Lord of the Church to bless you in this deliberation even as He has blessed us with His Sacrifice in time and eternity. For in and through Him we have mansions that surpass historic and scenic value of our brick and mortar today. God be with you Rev. Dr. Brian S. Saunders . President of Iowa" District.,East of The Lutheran Church - Missouri ,Synod . BSS:rlm Enc. rc PROTEST OF REZONING CITY OF IOWA CITY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: dew This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three- fourths ,of all the members of the council, all in accordance with 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. By: Q 1 Owner(s) Of Propert d Of y CAW i STATE OF IOWA SS. JOHNSON COUNTY) > -y On this of , 20, before me, the undersigned, a Notary ublic in and for said County and State, personally appeared Y and jr to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and ackmowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. PAME4A S.'.K� commWI *n�Nwneer 733MI a�lic in and for t11 S e of Iowa W COMMISSION ERPI 8 f - Orig: Subd Folder Cc: CA PCD Council Media File EDC October 2, 2012 1 EIP15 MINUTES PRELIMINARY CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OCTOBER 2, 2012 HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, 8:00 A.M. Members Present: Matt Hayek, Susan Mims, Michelle Payne Staff Present: Adam Bentley, Tracy Hightshoe, Geoff Fruin, Jeff Davidson, Wendy Ford, Tom Markus Others Present: Charlie Cowell, Nancy Quellhorst, Pat Shaver, Tracy Hightshoe, John Kenyon, Kevin Monson, Kent Jehle, Chuck Peters, Amanda Styron, Vanessa Miller. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Payne made the motion to recommend continued financial support to the City of .Literature. Hayek seconded the motion. The motion carried 3 -0. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mims at 8:00 A.M. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS: Chairperson Mims welcomed everyone and asked that those present introduce themselves. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Payne stated that there is a typo in the June 5, 2012, minutes. The typo will be corrected for the approved version. Hayek moved to approve minutes from the June 5, 2012, and June 12, 2012, meetings as amended. Payne seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0. UPDATE ON CREATIVE CORRIDOR EFFORTS — CHUCK PETERS: Chuck Peters spoke to the Members regarding the Creative Corridor efforts. He stated that he believes Iowa City is the `unknown jewel' in the region. He talked of the goals of developing a regional brand and an economic development structure for the region. Peters stated that he has been amazed at how difficult it has been to get all of the necessary stakeholders to agree on things as simple as the fact that we are we a region, that there are boundaries of that region, but what are they, and what should the name that could further the goals of the region be. The Creative Corridor, which includes the seven - county area surrounding Johnson and Linn Counties, came out in February, 2012, along with a 230 -plus page report on how to implement a marketing plan around the brand. Peters continued, stating that a small group helped to put together an EDC October 2, 2012 2 implementation plan, but that it has become apparent that they need more participants in this effort. He shared a handout with Members, showing how they hope to accomplish this. Amanda Styron spoke to Members next, giving some background on the Creative Corridor ideas. She noted that the idea behind the effort is to create a sense of regionalism and an innovation imperative. Two specific audiences being tapped in this endeavor are the leadership community and the creative community. By bringing these two groups together, she believes they can help to move this effort forward. Peters then asked the group if they had any comments or questions. He added that an important part of this will be creating an atmosphere of entrepreneurship, inclusiveness, and diversity, among others. A question was asked of Peters regarding the make -up of this group, and he clarified who is involved thus far. Kirkwood Community College owns the intellectual property and the rights to "Creative Corridor." Kirkwood is also acting as the contracting agent. Sally Mason, University of Iowa President, is also fully on -board with the concept, according to Peters. Discussion continued, with those present stating that they believe this endeavor is a good one, that the more people they can reach with their message, the better. Mims asked what role the City can play in terms of time and financial backing. She asked if there is a web site set up and Amanda responded that they have several in the works. She noted that Cedar Rapids Economic Development is assisting with this, as is ICCReative.us. The project web site is at creativecorridor.com. Peters added that the web site corridor202O.com is the site being used to keep people up to date and to provide access to the many related documents there, as well. Peters further clarified the collaboration and the various other entities attempting to get these efforts off the ground. Amanda continued, speaking about two opportunities — the Dream Big contest, which is a statewide contest that makes awards to people working on the best new big ideas; and also Think Iowa, which is an innovation and entrepreneurship conference being held in Des Moines, October 9 — 11. She stated that this conference has been great in the past and she encouraged people to participate. UPDATE ON COLLEGE / GILBERT STREET RFP REVIEW PROCESS: Davidson stated that the RFP for this project closed this past Friday at 5:00 PM. The City has received ten proposals, according to Davidson. John Yapp is coordinating the effort and will be setting up an internal review of the proposals this week to help narrow the field the best options. The best options will then be presented to City Council at a future work session in advance of their decision on which proposal to select. Davidson added that they have had numerous requests from the public to see these proposals and staff is preparing a synopsis of all proposals for the public to see. REVIEW CONCEPT PLAN FOR SABIN SCHOOL PROPERTY: Kent Jehle spoke first, giving Members some background on Midwest One Bank. He stated that the Bank would like to stay in downtown Iowa City, and in working with the University, they believe the purchase of the Sabin School property will allow them to do just that. They are currently under contract with the University and have a three -year purchase option. He detailed the Bank's plans and how they would like to renovate their EDC October 2, 2012 corporate headquarters at the corner of Clinton and Washington Street, as well. Next Kevin Monson spoke to the Members, noting that the corner property at Harrison and Clinton Streets and the Sabin site have both been rezoned to accommodate the banking use. He stated that the Bank's home mortgage center is temporarily located on the first floor of the Sabin building, which has allowed the School of Music project to move forward in the bank's former location at the drive through bank on Clinton St. Once this project is complete, the goal is to move the home mortgage to the first floor of the new building. A four -story building will then be needed for the Bank's other departments. He then shared some of the issues that need to be addressed, such as parking for the employees that will be moved to the new location. The possibility of a parking structure was briefly discussed, by Kevin Monson who shared some initial diagrams on how this might be accomplished. The discussion continued, with Monson stating that they would like to have some assurance from the City about helping to approve their parking needs, which may include a parking structure to park the bank employees and those of a possible private partner. The idea of allowing the possible private partner business to use the old St. Pat's parish hall on a temporary basis, was also broached. This would be necessary to assist the business in a near term move before construction of the new bank building commences and for the duration of the construction. The discussion then turned to how these requests might be met and what type of timeframe the Bank is looking at. Mims asked what type of process the City needs to go through in order to allow an arrangement such as this, and if staff can facilitate this administratively. Markus stated that it should probably go through the Economic Development Committee after some initial staff review. Markus added that one of the benefits of this proposal is that the private sector would be building in users for the end product. Members briefly discussed the proposal, agreeing that this could really help to jumpstart the development in this area. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTINUED FUNDING (FY 2014.15 AND 16) OF THE CITY OF LITERATURE: John Kenyon, Executive Director of the City of Literature, spoke with Members next, thanking the City for their financial support to date. He added that in addition to the financial help, having City involvement on the Board has also been crucial. He shared the annual report from the City of Literature, detailing some of the accomplishments thus far — educational, programming and community building, and tourism. COL has also collaborated with the University in the Hawkeye Reader Program, where football players go to area schools to read to students and to help motivate students to study hard. Another program, the Community Book Talk, showcases leaders in the area who share books that they enjoy. He continued, sharing some of the upcoming events that COL will be hosting. Payne asked about a clarification on the budget years, as she did not see 2013 in the listing. Ford replied to this, stating that 2013 has already been funded. Members agreed that the City of Literature is a very important piece of the Iowa City fabric. Payne made the motion to recommend continued financial support to the City of Literature. Hayek seconded the motion. The motion carried 3 -0. EDC October 2, 2012 4 STAFF TIME: Davidson briefly spoke about some projects in the area — a 180 -room hotel in the works by Kinseth Hospitality; a possible senior housing project in Towncrest; and a possible replacement of the Dodge Street Hy -Vee store in the former Robert's Dairy location. Davidson also spoke about the Moss Development, stating that they have officially changed the name to Moss Ridge Campus. Markus spoke next, stating that the energy level has increased within the development community and that there are several things coming together now. Mims voiced her appreciation for staffs' hard work in all of these projects. COMMITTEE TIME: Hayek briefly spoke about how the rebounding economy is helping to spur development locally, as is the hard work of staff. OTHER BUSINESS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Hayek moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 A.M. Payne seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0. EDC October 2, 2012 Council Economic Development Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 NAME TERM EXP. 3 N N co L W N .p - w g) o 4 CO W O O N N Michelle 01/02/14 X X X X X X X X Payne Matt 01/02/13 X X X O/ X X X X Hayek E Susan 01/02/13 X X X X X X X X Mims Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused October 9, 2012 Ms. Marian Karr City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 Dear Ms. Karr: IP16 Beginning October 18, 2012, current and new Mediacom customers may receive NFL Network on digital channel 186 by subscribing to Mediacom's Sports and Information Digital Package or on Channel 766 in the HD Package. If you have any questions, I can be reached by phone at 319 - 395 -9699 ext 3461 or via e-mail at Irassley @mediacomcc.com . Sincerely, Z... 1 �i Lee Grassley Sr. Manager, Government Relations Mediacom Communications Corporation 6300 Council St. NE • Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 • 319- 395 -7801 • Fax 319- 393 -7017 r.3 --7 Marian Karr From: Edwin Stone <stone.edwin @g mail. com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:06 AM To: Board Cc: daily -iowan @uiowa.edu; opinion @press - citizen.com; Council; Stephen Murley; editorial @gazcomm.com Subject: Identity Theft Dear Board Members, IP17 A north corridor group that opposes the positions of the "Support Iowa City Schools" organization has chosen to resort to a form of identity theft to advance its cause. They have created a website that uses the same URL as the Support Iowa City Schools group EXCEPT that it ends in .com instead of .org. The point of this is to get people who see the yellow yard signs of the SICS group to visit their website before (or instead of) visiting the real one. As the ultimate arbiters in the battle for educational equity for the children of our community, it is up to you to decide whether this identity theft tactic increases your belief in the validity of the north corridor group's position, or decreases it. It is also a warning to any candidate who plans to create an informational website for next year's school board election: be sure to buy the domain names ending in .com and net in addition to .org. Otherwise your opponent may put up a fake site to fool some of your supporters. Which brings me to the big question: What do we want to teach the kids of the ICCSD? The "golden rule" or "theft is OK if it helps you get what you want "? Regards, Ed Stone IP18 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Baldridge, Esther Baker, Shannon Gassman, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim MEMBERS ABSENT: William Downing, Pam Michaud, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Chery Peterson, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: John Shaw, Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1223 Seymour Avenue. Peterson said this property is in the Longfellow District, right across the street from the elementary school. She showed the front of the house, the west side, and the view of the back. Peterson showed the window that would be converted to a door. She said the owner proposes a door with full height glass. Peterson said the deck would be across the back of the house. She showed the addition from which the deck will be extended. Peterson said the addition is not original, as one can tell from the foundation. Peterson said that everything seems to be within the guidelines. She said the information that is missing at this point would be the design information for the railing at the deck, because even though it's acceptable as a new deck, the guidelines refer back to balustrades and handrails. Peterson stated that the other component of this project is a new basement window. She said she is unclear where it goes in, as it is not in the application. Peterson said she had the impression that it would go somewhere in the southeast part of the basement, although she did not know if it was a new opening or if the window well is already there. Peterson said staff feels this is okay to approve with the conditions that the applicant provide material and design information for railings at the new deck and provide design information on the new window well for the window. She added that the new window itself appears to be okay, but she was unsure about the location or what is going on with the window well. Baldridge asked why the Commission would care about this deck on the back side of the building. Miklo stated that the guidelines apply to all sides of the building. He said the idea is to preserve what is seen from the street and what is seen by all the neighbors, so that the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 Page 2 of 8 neighbors and any future owners of the house will have a house that maintains its integrity. He said there is more flexibility on the back of a house, but it is not ignored. Swaim asked if the present deck would remain. Peterson confirmed this and said that the new deck would tie into it, so the stairs would be reworked. Baker asked if there would then be two doors to the deck, and Peterson said that appears to be the case. Peterson said that if the Commission approves this subject to chair and staff review, and the owner then plans to fill that in, chair and staff would make sure the siding matches. She said they will also make sure the right trim goes around the new door. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a project at 1223 Seymour Avenue subject to the following conditions: that the applicant provide material and design information for railings at the new deck and provide design information on the new window well for the window. Gassman seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6 -0 (Ackerson, Downing, Michaud, Thomann and Wanner absent). 614 South Governor Street. Peterson stated that this property is in the Governor /Lucas Street Conservation District. She showed the front of the foursquare house. Peterson showed the back view, where the window would be converted to a sliding patio door and showed where the deck would step down. Peterson said this application came in late, so there is not as much information, and staff would want to follow up to make sure the details on railings and trim would be followed through. She said this application also concerns basement window issues. Peterson said the window well is already there. She said this was a rental property that had egress windows in the basement. Peterson said now the house is single - family, and the owners do not want the egress windows, which were poorly built. She said the owners want to install replacement windows that are not egress windows in the basement. Peterson said everything seems to be in line with the guidelines. She said that staff just needs more information. Baker asked if the patio door would line up with the right side of the second story window above. Peterson showed a sketch that appeared to show that it would not. She said this is a little trickier, because with a wider opening, there will have to be a header and change in the framing. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 614 South Governor Street with the following conditions: provide material and design information for railings at the new deck, provide product information for the new patio door, provide product information for basement windows, and a final review and approval by chair and staff. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0 (Downing, Michaud, Thomann and Wanner absent). SECTION 106 REVIEW OF ELEVATOR ADDITION TO 507 E. COLLEGE STREET. Swaim said there is federal money involved in this project. Miklo confirmed this. He said this is something the Commission has not done very often, but whenever federal funds are used, because of the Section 106 Act, there needs to be a review to assure that the funds are not HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 Page 3 of 8 being used in a way that would be harmful to an historic property. Miklo said this includes a property that is deemed eligible for the National Register. Miklo said the information on this property indicates that, as part of the larger historic district, it would be eligible for the National Register, and therefore the Commission is going through this review process. He said the proposal is to replace an existing ramp for persons with disabilities with an elevator. Miklo said it would be on the west side of the building where the ramp is currently in place. He said the ramp would be removed, and in its place, a small vestibule and elevator tower would be added. Peterson showed the proposal for the elevator tower and the stair structure. Shaw, the architect for the project, showed the plans for the building. He showed what is new, where a concrete ramp would be removed. Shaw said the ramp, in essence, takes pretty much the same footprint as what the replacement will have. Shaw said the drawing shows some lattice work underneath part of the stairway to fill that in a little bit. He said the stairway has to come down out of the first floor, because it is a qualifying egress from that first floor. Shaw said there is an existing door up there now, and it goes down those stairs. He said there is an exit sign on the inside, so it is a qualifying egress. Shaw said there is not really a ground floor in the building, but the floor to which the elevator would go up is the floor where people are seen by professionals at the Community Mental Health Center. He said when there is someone who cannot climb stairs, and most people cannot get up that existing ramp with a wheelchair, arrangements have to be made to see him or her in a separate building. Shaw said this project would solve that problem. Peterson showed the entry where the elevator would be accessed. Shaw confirmed this. Peterson pointed out the vestibule and the elevator itself on the plans. She said the elevator would go from the basement to the first level. Peterson said the stairway, which is exterior and therefore exposed to the weather, is the other way to get up to the first level. Shaw said he did not want to enclose the stairs, because that would essentially mean shutting off all the windows on that west side on the addition. He said that on the north elevation, he has held the elevator hoist way off the building, which allows an entire bank of windows to stay open along that area. Shaw stated that the only historic material to be removed would be on the basement level, where he would want to put a doorway where one comes in to what is the vestibule. He said that would involve the removal of three feet by seven feet of existing wall there. Shaw said that is the only removal of existing material that is part of the historic building. Swaim asked if the door behind the vestibule would be removed. Shaw said that one can't see where the door is going to be removed, because the ramp is in front of it. He showed where back on the wall there would be a portion of the wall taken out to put a door through there at the basement level. Shaw pointed out that the ramp is built in front of it, so that area of the building cannot be seen right now. He said it is directly below the door above. Swaim asked if on all parts of the existing house there is a returning cornice, as on the elevator shaft. Shaw confirmed this. He said he used elements from both the historic house and the addition. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 Page 4 of 8 Baker asked what is required of the Commission for this item. Miklo said it would be a motion to confirm that this project complies with the standards, if the Commission believes that to be true. MOTION; McMahon moved that the Historic Preservation Commission finds that this elevator addition to 507 E. College Street complies with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0 (Downing, Michaud, Thomann and Wagner absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Peterson said there were four certificates of no material effect, two with intermediate review, and two with minor review. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON HISTORIC DISTRICTS: Jefferson Street National Register Historic District. Swaim said that there continues to be subcommittee meetings with regard to a potential Jefferson Street District. Melrose Neiahborhood National Register Historic District. Swaim said that at the last meeting, the Commission was considering a slight boundary change in the National District. She said that Jean Walker, the neighborhood representative, asked for some time to consult with her executive board members in the neighborhood for their thoughts on that. Swaim read the memo Walker wrote to the Commission, which is as follows: Dear Members of the Historic Preservation Commission, The Melrose Neighborhood Executive Committee understands that you will be voting tomorrow night (9113) concerning delineation of the Melrose Historic District (HD) area that you will be considering for a historic preservation Local Designation. We further understand that you are considering, after consultation with The University of Iowa, that that area would coincide with the HD with the exclusion of 711, 727, and 741 Melrose Avenue. The historic house at 711 has recently been demolished by the Ul but, at our request, they relocated 711's barn nearby. Below are our comments concerning this topic. It was unfortunate that the Ul demolished 711 Melrose Avenue, both because of its historic value and National Register of Historic Places listing, and also because the demolition isolated the historic Melrose Avenue properties at 727 (not owned by the Ul) and 741 (owned by the Ul) from the rest of the Melrose Historic District. Both of these properties are Contributing Properties to the Melrose Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and in fact 741 is a Key Property in this NRHP listing. See attached Site Inventory Forms for the nomination to the NRHP for their interesting histories that are part of the City's heritage. Therefore, exclusion of them from Local Designation should not be taken lightly, especially as they would then be even more vulnerable to demolition by the Ul. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 Page 5 of 8 We understand that cooperation with the Ul in this matter might be important in the Local Designation of the HD, but: 1. We believe that the Ul should give the City and the Neighborhood some reassurances concerning the preservation of the rest of the Melrose Historic District before these properties are excluded from LD at the UI's request. 2. Before the final decision for exclusion of the properties is made, the UI's position should be clarified (concerning their consideration of the Local Designation and its area) by whomever in the Ul has the definitive say in this matter. 3. The Neighborhood would like to know what plans the Ul has for 727 and 741 Melrose Avenue in the future and what they might place there in their stead if they were to be demolished. Such transparency falls under the suggestion by Mayor Hayek at a recent City Council meeting (when the vacation of Melrose Place was approved) that he'd like the UI and City to work more closely in their planning. 4. The 711 barn should be included in the Local Designation area and the Neighborhood would like to know how the Ul would protect the barn if they demolished 727 Melrose Avenue. Sincerely, Jean Walker Melrose Neighborhood Representative Swaim said that the subcommittee had suggested that the property involved in the new hospital parking lot and the two properties to the west not be included in the local historic district. The apartment building at 741 Melrose is owned by the University and 727 is a rental property. The creation of the parking lot isolated the other two properties from the district. Swaim suggested the Commission vote on the new boundaries. She said that would be the beginning of proposing the boundary through notification of property owners and through neighborhood meetings, in terms of explaining the ramifications of being a local district. Regarding the property at 727 Melrose, Trimble asked if there has been any effort to contact the property owner to get his opinion on being part of a district. She said she thought it should be a consideration whether the property owner wanted to be in an historic district or not. MOTION: Litton moved to approve the redefined boundaries for the Melrose Neighborhood local historic district. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on vote of 7 -0 (Downing, Michaud, Thomann and Wagner absent). Swaim said that last night she attended the Board of Adjustment meeting at which the property owner of 111 and 115 South Governor Street appealed the Commission's decision to deny the owner's application to demolish the two houses at these addresses. She said the Commission's decision to deny the application was based on the fact that the houses were not unsound or irretrievable, and not meeting those standards, there were no proposed plans for replacement structures. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 Page 6 of 8 Swaim said that after discussion, the vote was four to zero to uphold the Commission's decision. She said it was interesting in the sense that the definition of irretrievable was discussed. Swaim said the Board's decision was to be based on whether it appeared that the Commission was capricious or arbitrary in its decision and therefore did not follow the guidelines in making the decision. She said the record of the meeting supported the fact that the Commission was following the guidelines and was not arbitrary and capricious. Swaim said there were two members of the public who had been at the meeting who spoke up and said that the decision was based on the guidelines. Swaim said the owner has an opportunity to appeal the decision to District Court in the next 30 days. DISCUSS ANNUAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS. Trimble, the Executive Director of Friends of Historic Preservation, said that she and Peterson will compile a list of properties that might be eligible for awards this year as submitted by Commission members, board members of Friends of Historic Preservation, and the public. She said that a date for the awards presentation has not yet been determined, although it looks like the date would be a weeknight at the Public Library or a Sunday at the East Side Recycling Center's Education Center. Miklo asked Commission members to take note of work being done around town, especially restoration work, particularly if it's outside a district, because the Commission has record of those projects within the districts, and to let Peterson know about any such projects. Trimble said that homeowners and contractors are both recognized. Swaim said it is good to have before and after photographs. Swaim asked for volunteers to be on a subcommittee for perhaps one meeting to look at the nominated projects to select properties for the Commission to consider. Trimble said that work on the inside of a building can also be recognized in the awards ceremony. She added that there is a stewardship award that recognizes someone who has done major work, and Miklo said the award goes to people who have done a lot of work over a period of time. Swaim said the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission also alerts the Commission to rural properties that might be eligible for awards. Trimble agreed that the County Commission is also part of the process. McMahon and Baker said they would be willing to serve on a subcommittee to consider nominated properties. Trimble asked people to let her know about their preferences for the date for the awards ceremony. Swaim said she likes the idea of using the East Side Recycling Center, because people could see the new building and because the Salvage Barn is there. Miklo said there might not be enough room there. He said another option would be to use one of the downtown historic buildings. Miklo said that in the past, the ceremony has been held at Old Brick and also at the Masonic Temple. Trimble said she would check into this. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 9 AND AUGUST 29,2012: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 Page 7 of 8 MOTION: McMahon moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's August 9, 2012 meeting and August 29, 2012 meeting, as written. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0 (Downing. Michaud, Thomann and Wagner absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5.58 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte z O N O� UO Z U Oix Q W � M Q N W G UZ W W OC W IL Ua FR O U) z O O U z O �o W N W� IL W U� o oww _U)(L O O N N Z:l cm Q m IL x a E WZ W O �� Y � Z CO) x x x 0 x x x o x o o N x x x x x x x x i x O O O o x o x x x o x x x x r x x =' x x x `= O x `= O =' O i x O x x x x x x x i x co O o x x x o o x x o uj x x x x x x x x x x x x x o x x x x O x O CD x LU o w o x x o x o x x x N x x x i x x x x x x a x M V N M M v v N N V' M N W W r O) N M r w N M r O) N M r C) N M r 07 N M r O) N M r 01 N M r C) N M r N M r O) N M r m N M r O) N M H W Z W Y O w LU Y. U Q O W p G a m W y W LU LU Q J 3= O Z G Z Z N Q ty c� W Z Q Z O Q o z 2 Q Q a Q U J Z O Q Z Q c z Q Q U Q ui m Z Z O O O N N Z:l cm Q m IL x a E WZ W O �� Y � Z IP19 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 — 6:30 PM DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bacon Curry, Andrew Chappell, Cheryl[ Clamon, Charlie Drum, Scott Dragoo, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Hart, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Jacobson STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chappell at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 16, 2.0.12 MINUTES: Drum moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections. Dragoo seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: Hightshoe stated she emailed the City's Strategic Plan to the Commission and asked the Commission to review the priorities identified in the plan. PUBLIC MEETING: Nomination and Election of Officers Chappell said the election was for Chair and Vice - Chair. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION September 20, 2012 PAGE 2 of 6 Gatlin moved to nominate Michelle Bacon Curry for the Vice -Chair position. Zimmerman Smith seconded the motion. Zimmerman Smith moved to nominate Andrew Chappell for Chair. Bacon Curry seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion to nominate Chappell for Chair and Bacon Curry for Vice Chair was approved 8 -0. Public Hearing & Approval of the FY12 Consolidate Annual Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER) Hightshoe stated the report had all required information except the PR06 report which summarizes expenditures for planning /admin., public services and economic development. The report also shows how much CDBG program income was received. Staff was unable to balance the IDIS reports with the City's financial system. The report was balanced and provided at the meeting for commission members to review. She said there was also one HUD report that was in error. The report identified that the city has no HOME match liability. She said under the HOME program, participating jurisdictions have to match their HOME disbursements (non admin. costs) by at least 25 percent. For example if you spent $100,000 you have to provide a HOME match of $25,000 through eligible items such as tax forgiveness, donated labor, etc. She said most non - profit housing developers don't pay taxes on assisted properties or pay a reduced amount based on IRS rules. Low - Income Housing Tax Credit projects pay about one -third of the tax rate for the properties in the project. This tax forgiveness contributes to our match. As HOME match is cumulative as opposed to annual, the City has excess match and no problems are anticipated in meeting the HOME match obligation for the foreseeable futures. Staff contacted our HUD representative about the report. The HUD Omaha office corrected the report. The City's match liability was $193,695. The City will carry over $2.5 million in excess match to next year. Hightshoe stated the CAPER summarizes the accomplishments for this program year and also provides status updates on prior year projects that were open during FY12. Hightshoe recommended that commission members review the CDBG and HOME Summaries provided in the report. The summaries identify if a project is open or closed, amount of funds spent and if closed, the number of beneficiaries. Bacon Curry asked if students are included in the census numbers on Table 1, Race. Hightshoe explained that if the student identifies Iowa City as their home residence then it is included. Not all students will identify Iowa City as their home residence. Chappell said the City does encourage students to claim Iowa City as their home residence. Bacon Curry asked if HUD uses these Census number when determining the City's funding amounts. Hightshoe said total population is one of the factors HUD uses; other factors include age of housing, number in families in poverty, etc. Hightshoe said when the City completed their housing market analysis they factored out the 19 -24 year old market, so the students aren't influencing the housing needs identified for low income households for CDBG /HOME funds. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION September 20, 2012 PAGE 3 of 6 Hart asked which census tracts are low- moderate income due to students. Hightshoe stated census tracts 11, 21, and 16 are low- moderate income and primarily student census tracts. Hart and the Commission clarified which shaded areas where low- moderate income census tracts. Hightshoe said Map 1 is a census bureau estimate and the City hasn't received the official results. Staff anticipates the final map will look much like this map. The Commission discussed the areas on the map and the residents within each. Zimmerman Smith stated while not related to the CAPER she would like to know how entitlement funding for cities is calculated and what affect removing our students would have on the City's HOME /CDBG funding, and other programs such as Section 8. Hightshoe stated she will find how the amount is calculated and email to commission members. She did note that while students in all communities in the United States are counted in the communities they identify in the Census survey, at the local level, Iowa City does not assist projects that primarily benefit the student population. Students do have an impact on our housing market and its affordability. Zimmerman Smith asked if Iowa City could not report the students. Hightshoe stated officially, she didn't believe individual cities can change the entitlement amount formula. Including college students in the entitlement formula has been debated at the federal level. The formula remains as it is for now. Bacon Curry said the City doesn't have to spend all the money allocated. Thus if Iowa City is allocated $1 million dollars from HUD, the City could return or not spend half the funds. Gatlin said that HUD would recapture the other $500,000. Hightshoe stated she is not aware of a community that willingly returned funds as the City can spend the funds how they choose such as public infrastructure in low- income neighborhoods, downpayment assistance, park acquisition, etc. Hightshoe stated returning HOME funds may subject the City to fair housing complaints and investigation of its federal funds. Zimmerman Smith stated it seems that including students in University towns make these towns look like they have higher needs than they actually do because students are counted. These students wouldn't qualify for housing if they applied for a voucher. Hightshoe stated that the way CDBG /HOME entitlement funds are calculated is different than other HUD programs such as Section 8. The Iowa City Housing Authority (Section 8, public housing and other programs) covers all of Johnson County and parts of Iowa and Washington County. Hightshoe was not sure how their budget amount is calculated annually. Bacon Curry said the students wouldn't qualify, but the number of students helps Iowa City get more funds. Gatlin moved to approve the FY12 CAPER to HUD with the revised reports as indicated. Zimmerman Smith seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion to approve the CAPER with the reports included to HUD was approved 8 -0. Selection of Projects to Monitor in FY13 Commission members choose projects to monitor in the upcoming year. Hightshoe stated the purpose of monitoring is for commission members to report on project status, communicate with HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION September 20, 2012 PAGE 4 of 6 the subrecipients and report back to the commission. Staff also monitors the projects based on HUD's guidance and forms. Commission members will monitor the following projects as indicated below. FY13 Projects The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating Drum October DVIP - Aid to Agencies Drum October FY13 HACAP - Playground Zimmermann Smith November Neighborhood Centers of JC - Aid to Agencies Zimmermann Smith November Community Mental Health Center - Accessibility Zimmermann Smith November DVIP - Facility Rehabilitation Hart December MECCA - Security Improvements Dragoo January Habitat for Humanity - Acquisition & Rehab. Dragon January HACAP - Rental Rehabilitation Bacon Curry April Neighborhood Centers of JC - Facility Rehab. Bacon Curry April Crisis Center of Johnson County - Facility Rehab. Gatlin May Charm Homes LLC - Rental Housing Gatlin May IC Housing Rehab. STAFF June IC Economic Development STAFF June FY12 Mayor's Youth - Rental Housing Chappell November FY12 Successful Living - Rental Rehab. Chappell November FY12 IV Habitat for Humanity - Owner - Occupied Rehab. Chappell November FY12 IV Habitat for Humanity - Land Acquisition Hart December FY11 Shelter House - Rental Rehab. Hart December FY11 Isis Investments - Rental Housing Hart December FY11 Wetherby Condos South LLC - Rental Rehab. Hart December FY12 United Action for Youth - Transitional Housing Clamon January FY12 Crisis Center - Parking Clamon January FY11 IV Habitat for Humanity - Property Acquisition Clamon January FY11 Visiting Nurse Association - Property Acquisition Jacobson April FY11 IC - Fairmeadows Splash Pad Jacobson April FY11 ICHA - Tenant Based Rent Assistance Jacobson April FY11 & FY10 The Housing Fellowship - Affordable Rental Housing Gatlin May Timeline for the Annual Review of CITY STEPS Hightshoe announced there will be at least one meeting to gather feedback on CITY STEPS. Commission members will be notified of the meeting(s). A summary of the feedback received will be in the October packet. In October commission members will review the feedback and determine if any priorities need to be amended in CITY STEPS. If there is, a public comment period will begin followed by a public hearing. City Council must consider and approve a proposed amendment. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION September 20, 2012 PAGE 5 of 6 Old Business — Allocation Process Committee, Update Dragoo reported that they reviewed comments and it appears that no changes will be made to the allocation process or ranking sheets at this time. The committee recommends an online survey every 2 -3 years regarding feedback on the process. The survey should be administered in April, very close to the end of the allocation process. The committee is done meeting at this time. ADJOURNMENT: Clamon moved to adjourn. Drum seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8 -0. z O U) U) O U H z W a O J W W z O U z Q :7 z_ Fn M O 2 O N �p � O E W CL 0 i na Z O U) O v f- z W a O J W W D Z O Z Q C9 Z U) O D O C) W re W N 0g Z Q N D Z W H X C LLJ C: C U a` Q z° II II II W_ Yx0z x x x x x x x N x O x x x o x x o x o x x x x o x x x o x x x x x x O O O x x x x x x x x M O LU x x x x x x x x M to Lij x x x x x x i x N O x x 0 x x x x x a � N It M N It N _M _M W O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N W o� rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o� J W 2 J Q W 2 V W J Z H � Z W 0 J p W Z p V 2 N p C7 W V LU V Q H OC Z m 2 V C) D D C7 N X C LLJ C: C U a` Q z° II II II W_ Yx0z IP20 In PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood - Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jennifer Baum, Dell Richard, Tracy Barkalow, Ray Anderson, Sarah Clark, Shirley Lindell, Warren Paris, Janice Frey, Mike Wright, Jeff Eberg, Shawn Lueth, Jeff Clark RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of rezoning 1.1 acres located at 2225 Mormon Trek Boulevard from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Community Commercial (CC -2) zoning. The Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of SUB12- 00003, a preliminary plat of Moss Office Park, a 9 lot, approximately 243 acre commercial office park subdivision with outlots reserved for future development located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1, provided the necessary written permissions are received from adjacent property owners for offsite improvements and written permissions are received from Neal Llewellyn and Hills Bank/Trust to include parcel identification numbers as indicated in the staff report as outlots within the subdivision prior to Iowa City Council approval, and if the permissions are not received prior to Council's consideration of the plat, the Commission recommends that it's also acceptable to have the original plat as proposed without the Llewellyn /Hills Bank Trust property. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said she doesn't know if the Commission had anything to do with the new stop sign on the corner and Dewey and N. Summit Street, but she wanted to thank them profusely and tell them how much it is appreciated. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEMS CPA1 2-00003/REZ1 2-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID -ORP) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 15 approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard south of Preston Lane. Miklo said that the request is to change the land use designation, which is currently Office Research Park (ID -ORP), meaning that it's not appropriate for development due to concerns about infrastructure. He said the Clear Creek Master Plan adopted by the City in 2002 shows this as commercial and potential office park. He said when the Comprehensive Plan was developed in 1989 this area was identified as a good place for an office park because of its access to Highway 218. He said some infrastructure was put in place with the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard but staff determined that there would be difficulty in providing direct street access to this property, and access to an arterial street is probably necessary for office development. He said the developable part of the land is considerably higher than the road, and it would take a considerable amount of grading and removable of development land to get access up to the site. He said staff believes that situation is a justification to consider a change in the Comprehensive Plan and to look at alternative uses for this property. Miklo said the applicant has considered residential designation on this property and previously submitted an application for residential multifamily zoning. He said staff feels that given the limited access residential would be more appropriate than a commercial or an office development. He said that the proximity to Highway 218 may make it inappropriate for single family development, but possibly appropriate for some sort of attached housing. Miklo said there are some issues concerning development that need to be overcome before zoning designation can be granted. Miklo said there's a ridge line that divides the property into two parts — two- thirds drains to the north and would have sanitary sewer service through the Cardinal Point Subdivision and about one -third drains to the southeast and would need sanitary sewer service established by a line through property owned by the Presbyterian Church to the east. He said because of this, staff feels it is premature to designate this property Low Density Multifamily (RM -12). He said the other issue is access, and at this point there isn't a plan showing how that could be achieved. He said unless access is possible on Camp Cardinal Boulevard the only access is via Camp Cardinal Road, which is an unimproved road and not suitable for development purposes, so until there is a plan to improve that road, staff feels that the Interim Development designation should be kept in place. He said staff is recommending approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan showing this as appropriate for residential at eight to sixteen dwelling units per acre. He said they would suggest language in the Plan raising a concern that due to the rugged topography of this site achievement of the maximum density may not be possible. He said staff recommends that the proposal to rezone this to RM -12 be deferred until there is a plan to provide infrastructure. Eastham asked if there is already a storm water detention system in place. Miklo said this site would probably have to have its own storm water management facility. He said this is something they would review in detail with the plat. Freerks asked if those are natural or manmade slopes. Miklo said for the most part they are natural, but some of them were manmade with the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Freerks said that sensitive areas will come into play as well as the wooded areas. Freerks opened public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 15 Dell Richard, the attorney for St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, the property owner to the east of the site, said he is there to support the staff's recommendation and indicate that change to a residential use is probably appropriate for this site. He said they are concerned about what goes into the caveat that Miklo talked about in the Comprehensive Plan change regarding traffic density that is resulting from building density. He said they have to share Camp Cardinal Road as development occurs so whatever happens on the subject site will impact on what they are able do on their side of the road. He said that they are an isolated parcel and when you are doing a Comprehensive Plan you really need to think about all of the parcels that are on Camp Cardinal Road and how any density decisions that are made with respect to the zoning will affect the owners of 100 acres of land. He said they would like to remain part of the consideration of anything that's done. He said, though, that they support the staff's recommendations. Freerks closed public hearing. Freerks said they usually like to take two meetings for Comprehensive Plan items, but that is up to the Commission. She invited a motion. Eastham moved that CPA12- 00003 /REZ12 -00011 be deferred to the October 4th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Eastham asked if the traffic density that would be accommodated by the improvements to Camp Cardinal Road would be enough to accommodate the estimated needs for the adjoining parcels to the east. He said he would like staff to give them some more concrete numbers on the ability of Camp Cardinal Road as an improved road to handle projected traffic for all the parcels that are likely to be developed and provide traffic on that road. Miklo said the transportation planners have been looking at those numbers and he would have are report on the issue at the next meeting. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. CPA12- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Central District Plan Map for properties located at 905, 909 and 911 N. Governor Street and a property between 906 N. Dodge and 910 N. Dodge Street from Low to Medium Density Multifamily to Single Family & Duplex Residential. Eastham said he is a board member of an organization that owns property within the potential 200 foot objection area if this parcel were to be rezoned and asked to be recused. Freerks said that any rezoning or Comprehensive Plan item requires at least four members in order to pass. Miklo said there is currently a vacant office building on a portion of the property, two existing single family houses and a vacant tract. He showed photos of the property and the neighborhood. He said this item is before the Commission at the request of City Council. He said there was a rezoning proposal on 911 North Governor Street last year that the Commission reviewed and the Council reviewed early this year. He said the proposal was to rezone the property from Commercial Office (CO -1) to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12). Miklo said that the Council denied that application and instructed staff to review the Comprehensive Plan for this area, which currently shows the area as appropriate for low to medium density multifamily. He Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 15 said that designation is there in recognition of the apartment buildings that were built in the R36 zone, which is in place due to a court order. He noted that the R313 zoning designation is obsolete and is no longer in the Zoning Code. He said in recognition of the R313 zoning, the Comprehensive Plan shows the apartment buildings, a vacant tract, the office and two single family homes as Low to Medium Density Multifamily. He said the R36 zoning designation has been on the zoning map since the 1960s. It was a high density multifamily zone that was out of character with the low density character of the older neighborhood. The results of the R313 zone have had a lasting influence on this area. He said the City's policies regarding neighborhood design and development have changed dramatically since that time R313 zoning was put in place. Miklo said the proposal before the Commission is to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan from low to medium density multifamily to a residential density of two to thirteen dwelling units per acre, a single family duplex designation. He said that would indicate that future appropriate zoning in the area could be Medium Density Single Family (RS -8) or High Density Single Family (RS -12), which staff thinks may be the more appropriate designation given the surrounding neighborhood and the City's policies regarding neighborhood stabilization. He said that zoning allows duplexes and attached townhouse style units. Freerks opened public hearing. Tracy Barkalow, one of the owners of the 902/906 North Dodge complex, the northern piece of land that they are attempting to change the Comprehensive Plan for, and an interest holder in the 911 North Governor building on the other side of the property, said he was there to address a letter from the City dated September 12, 2012. He said these properties have had a complicated zoning history, but it has been sorted out clearly by the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Kemp versus the City of Iowa City in 1987. He said in the court ordered ruling, the judge ordered that all four acres that include 902 and 906 North Dodge, and bare land at the north side along with the 911 North Governor Street building were addressed as one in this ruling. He said at that time the properties were owned by one group of investors. He said the ruling was binding between the City of Iowa City and the owners and their successors and assigned interests in the property followed through with that order. He said the owners and successors were permitted to develop these properties with multifamily apartments according to the provisions applicable to R31B zoning, in effect, May 30, 1978. Barkalow said this property still maintains R313 zoning for the rights to develop under zoning per the court order, which would include the north piece and the two apartment complexes and the property by the park and the 911 North Governor building. He said as part of the order, the City's large scale residential development ordinance shall not apply to development of those properties. He said the order goes further and orders that the City is and shall be enjoined from interfering with development of those properties. He said that as he sees it, the court order should be enough for the Commission to take great pause from interfering with the development of those properties. Barkalow said he has met with staff in order to address any unforeseen issues and wants to see a truly great looking project for the city and the neighborhood. He said he and his family live in the neighborhood. He said if the City's plan proceeds, the proposed changes before the Commission and future down - zoning planned by the City for the area would be a major negative financial loss to TSP Holdings, the owners of the properties, and would trigger significant financial losses in the millions of dollars to his company. He said TSP Holdings would have no choice but to hold the City of Iowa City liable for those losses. Barkalow said that TSP Holdings can develop 248 units at that location, which means they can add an additional 207 units. He Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 15 said if the City changes the proposal and down -zones the property, they would be allowed to put in approximately 26 more units at this location, and that would be a loss 4.5 million loss to the company. He urged that they discuss this in a more professional process with the City, and work through with adjacent property owners the proposal they are preparing to submit to enhance the area. He said TSP Holdings is in the process of preparing a development site plan to submit to the City's Planning & Zoning Department that will meet all R -313 regulations as currently allowed. He asks the Commission to defer this matter and let the development take the course as it is intended. Freerks asked Miklo if she is correct in assuming that not all of the property is zoned R36. Miklo showed the Commission on a map what portion is zoned R36. Ray Anderson of 812 Dewey Street said he supports the City's proposal to change the zoning, and he urged the Commission to consider it seriously despite Barkalow's threat of a lawsuit. He said he sees the prospect of Barkalow putting 250 units in there as a much more serious threat. He said Barkalow won't provide parking for all those units, and there is no on- street parking anywhere nearby, except for Dewey Street, which is a small, two -lane brick street. He said putting access for the apartments on Governor Street would be irresponsible because there is a very steep downhill grade which is very slippery in the winter and many drivers bypass by coming down Dewey Street. He said the utility company has reinforced their utility poles on that slope so they won't be downed as they have so often been in the past. He said the only access would be at the base of that hill and is too dangerous. He said to keep their nice community intact and to preserve life and limb from that hazardous area, he urged the Commission to go along with the City's recommendation. Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said she believes Barkalow lives about five blocks from the site. She said she fully agrees with the Council and with the recommendation to change the zoning. She asked the Commission to keep in mind RS -8 for the area so that it would fit in with the rest of the housing in the area. She said what is to be rezoned should not be commercial and should be residential, and she strongly supports the Commission's decision to carry through with this rezoning and said the neighbors would be happy to give input to make this as congenial and as helpful to the development of this area as possible. Freerks clarified that this is not a rezoning at this meeting. Sarah Clark of 509 Brown Street and the Northside Neighborhood Association said she wanted to read a letter as a matter of record: "Commission Members: We are in favor of the Planning and Zoning Commission amending the City's Central District Plan of removing the commercial office designation at 911 North Governor and making the area single family and duplex residential. But there is very significant concern for our families and connected neighborhoods for this amendment, and that is the designation. While this meeting tonight may not specifically decide the designation ", meaning the actual zoning, "it does lay the foundation for that decision. If this meeting decides a designation, we strongly urge the Commission to vote for RS -8 Medium Density Single Family. Our hopes are that the City continue their focus on neighborhood strengthening measures and insist that developers and interested parties not only submit to the City the proper paperwork, but also thoughtful, well planned neighborhood enhancing development plans that maintain the current zoning of the surrounding properties. Another suggested and appreciated action by any interested developer is sincere outreach to the affected community which includes homeowners Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 15 and those who rent, ourselves included, alike. We have shown to be actively open to ideas, discourse and planning when it comes to where we live. Thank you, Mark and Ashley Shields" Shirley Lindell of 804 Dewey Street said she wants to echo what both Anderson and Baum have said about Dewey Street and the development, and that they strongly encourage the Commission to stick with what they have said they are going to do and that they maintain the maximum of the RS -8. Warren Paris of 905 North Governor Street said he wants to mention the consideration of traffic. He said if you increase the traffic going up the hill to Dodge on Governor and you increase the traffic going into that center area it would create a traffic jam, and to minimize the potential increase in traffic in that area seems like a goal to strive for. He said because of the one way streets of Governor and Dodge the only way you can access is to increase the traffic on Dewey and North Summit or increase it on Brown and Dodge Streets. Janice Frey of 922 North Dodge Street said she and her husband would like to see the neighborhood remain low density, so they support the RS -8 designation. Mike Wright of 225 North Lucas Street and coordinator of the Northside Neighborhood Association said this property has been the focus of some controversy for almost a year. He said last year the proposal was to add 36 bedrooms to the area, and that was certainly not a popular idea with the neighborhood or the City Council. He said this Council has as a stated goal neighborhood stabilization and preservation, and the prospect of a large, multifamily development seems to be counter to that. He said 207 units being added to this area would be the antithesis for neighborhood stabilization and development. He said the Comprehensive Plan, on the other hand, would support the Council's stated goals of neighborhood stabilization and improvement. He said the character of that area is still predominantly a mix of single family owner occupied and single family rental. He said that's the character of the neighborhood that they need to work hard to preserve so he hopes the Commission will bear that in mind in their deliberations. Freerks closed public hearing. Freerks said they had received some letters and information this evening, so she recommends a motion for deferral. Swygard moved to defer amending the Central District Comprehensive Plan until future land use map for 905, 909 and 911 North Governor Street along the parcel located between 906 North Dodge and 910 North Dodge Streets. Thomas seconded the motion. Swygard said she would like to read through all the information before making a decision. Martin agreed with Swygard. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 4 -0 (Eastham abstaining) The Commission recessed for a five minute break. Freerks called the meeting back to order. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 15 REZONING ITEM REZ12- 00020: Discussion of an application submitted by TLD -WT for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone for approximately 1.1 -acres of property located at 2225 Mormon Trek Boulevard. Miklo said when this area was annexed into the city the intent was to develop a light industrial commercial park. He said the plan changed dramatically in the early 1990s when much of that proposed light industrial park changed to residential. He said the applicant is now requesting that the existing CI -1 zoning, which is intensive commercial and quasi - industrial, be changed to Community Commercial (CC -2) which is more of a retail zone. He said because of the evolution of this area the staff feels this rezoning request is appropriate. He said they have had similar requests on other properties in the area and along Highway 1. He said the property is developed with an office building that is suitable in the CC -2 zone. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Edberg of 337 Highland Drive said he is a real estate broker and the representative of this applicant. He said the motive for the zone change is to secure a particular medical tenant in this building. He said the site is fully developed, and they won't be building anything else there. He said this is an office building, but a medical use is not allowed in the CI -1 zone, which is why they are asking for a rezoning to CC -2. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to approve the request to rezone 1.1 acres located at 2225 Mormon Trek Boulevard from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Community Commercial (CC -2) zoning. Eastham seconded. Freerks said this property is well suited for what the applicant has described and no alterations are needed or desired to make that change, and it's compatible with the surrounding development. Eastham said he agreed with Freerks' comments and also noted that the CC -2 zoning is supported by the Comprehensive Plan covering this location. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. SUBDIVISION ITEM SUB12- 00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Moss for a preliminary plat of Moss Office Park, a 9 -lot, approximately 243 -acre commercial and office park subdivision located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1. Howard said at the last meeting, staff recommended that the Commission defer this plat in order to give time to request participation in the plat by the neighboring property owners, Dr. Llewellyn and Hills Bank and Trust as trustee. While staff finds that the plat as originally submitted meets the City standards for a commercial subdivision provided that permissions are received for building the east/west street that would extend from Highway 1 to the Moss property, staff Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 15 recommends and the applicant concurs that it would be in the best interest of the Moss development, the City and Dr. Lewellyn and Hills Bank and Trust as owner and trustee, respectively for the parcel she pointed out on the map, to include the parcels owned by Dr. Llewellyn and Hills Bank and Trust as trustee in the preliminary plat for the larger Moss office park. She said the reason for that is because Oakdale Boulevard will at some time be needed for the full build out of the Moss office park so this should be an integral part of that preliminary plat. She said staff has had conversations with the owners of that parcel, Dr. Llewellyn and a Hills Bank Trust, and they are proceeding with getting the needed signatures to sign on as part owners of this plat. She said the engineer for the developer has redrawn the plat to include that larger parcel as outlots, so staff recommends that the Commission send both plats, to the City Council as acceptable plats but with the preference being for the plat showing the Llewellyn and Hills Bank Trust property. Howard said the preliminary plat that was approved in 2010 included the Llewellyn/Trust parcel largely because the initial design was to build Oakdale Boulevard as the initial road that would give access to the Moss property. She said preliminary plats expire after two years if they aren't final platted. October 261h of 2012 is when the 2010 preliminary plat will expire if not final platted by then. She said the proposed plat that is before the Commission, if approved, would replace the 2010 plat. She said the only major difference for the Llewellyn/Trust property would be that they would have a new city street abutting the south edge of their property, a corner of which would extend onto the Llewellyn and Hills Bank Trust property. Thomas asked if the owners of the Llewellyn property agree with the entry point of Highway1 for the new street. Howard said staff is in the process of getting permissions for that and the City intends to build the north street if approved by the City Council. The City Manager is negotiating with Pearson regarding acquisition of the necessary property for the new street. She also noted that the north street could still be accomplished through offsite improvement agreements, so it would not be necessary to include the Llewellyn/Trust property as part of the preliminary plat. In other words, Staff finds that it would be preferable to have the property included, but is not necessary to meet the City's subdivision standards. Thomas asked if the negotiations were going well for the Llewellyn piece of property. Howard said in staff's opinion it would be advantageous to the owners of the Llewellyn/Trust property, but that it is their choice to be included or not. She said the part of the property in the southeast corner is potentially developable but it currently has no access to Highway 1. She said it's difficult to get an agreement from the Department of Transportation for a single driveway for one property to a State highway. If the City builds a signalized intersection at that location and utilities are extended to it, it makes it a potentially developable parcel. Platting the land will be a necessary step for development. Freerks opened public hearing. Shawn Lueth of Shive Hattery said he was here as a representative of Steve Moss to answer any questions. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of SUB12- 00003, a preliminary plat of Moss Office Park, a 9 lot, approximately 243 acre commercial office park subdivision with Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 15 outlots reserved for future development located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1, provided the necessary written permissions are received for offsite improvements necessary for the first phase development and written permissions are received from Neal Llewellyn and Hills Bank Trust to include parcels identified in the staff report as outlots within the subdivision prior to Iowa City Council approval. However, if the permissions are not received prior to Council's consideration of the plat, the Commission recommends that it's also acceptable to have the original plat as proposed without the Llewellyn /Hills Bank Trust property included. Martin seconded. Eastham said he was delighted that they are at this point for preliminary plat approval. He said he thinks this is an important economic development for the City as well as for the property owners. He said he would like it to go ahead even though the access to the proposed Phase One area is only going to be provided by one connecting street to Highway 1 although his preference is that it be two connecting streets. Freerks said she agreed with Eastham. She said she's excited to see this move forward and also thinks that two access points would be better than one. Martin said she agrees that this is an exciting development for this area, and she hopes that with the development of the north road and its use, and its potential to be a thriving development area may convince Pearson to allow a south access road as well. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM REZ12- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for amendments to Title 14, Zoning, modifying the location and screening standards for central air conditioning units for uses in multi - family and commercial zones. Howard said the City received an application from Jeff Clark for an amendment to allow central air conditioning units to be located on the street side of multifamily or mixed use buildings if the units are located on a balcony or patio and screened from view. She said he is also requesting clarification if packaged terminal air conditioners (PTAC) are allowed on any side of a building as long as they are covered with a decorative screening guard. She said in his request, Clark has also proposed an allowance for wall air conditioners to be allowed on the street side of a building as long as the sleeves are painted to match the wall they are installed in. She said staff believes that in general air conditioning units should be located at the rear, along the sides, or on the roof of the building. She said staff also recommends some allowance for central air conditioning units to be located on street - facing balconies or patios if they are properly screened from view. She said when there is practical difficulty locating the air conditioners to the rear of side of buildings, the applicant currently has the option to request a minor modification, which is an administrative hearing and allows the applicant and the City to negotiate an acceptable alternative design. She said staff has drafted an amendment for the Commission's review that would make allowance for locating air conditioners on the street side of a building without a minor modification. Under this proposal design review would be required. The Design Review Committee would consider how the air conditioning units are integrated into the design of the balconies. She said staff is concerned that this amendment might be construed over time as an Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 15 allowance to put air conditioners in all cases along the fronts of buildings. She said there may be ways to bolster the language of the proposed amendment to make it even more clear that there should be some demonstration of practical difficulty before this type of allowance is granted. Freerks asked how often administrative minor modification requests are made regarding air conditioning units. Howard said there have only been a few requests, but prior to 2005 the zoning code language was slightly different. She said having a minor modification hearing forces the applicant to show clearly that there is a practical difficulty achieving the Code standard because one of the criteria for a minor modification is that you have to show that there is some unusual circumstance preventing you from meeting the Code requirement. Freerks asked how this would be done with the language in the proposed amendment. Howard said after the Commission's informal meeting on September 17, she had some discussions with Housing and Inspection Services, and they felt there would be some possibility to bolster this language even further. She said if the Commission is uncomfortable approving this application tonight, she recommends that they defer it. Freerks said for her there are some pieces missing to make it work. Howard said that staff thinks that putting the PTAC units behind building walls with a metal screen is an acceptable solution. She said it has been done on some buildings downtown and putting language into an amendment regarding that would be beneficial. She said staff is not in support of allowing the wall units along the streetside of a building. Thomas said that the standard of "practical difficulty" is not very well defined. Freerks asked who decides what is "other similar mechanical units" as written in the proposed amendment. Howard indicated how the PTAC units are installed and how they look. She stated that the language for "other similar mechanical units" was intended to allow for changes in technology or terminology. Freerks asked if someone would have to approve the installation of PTAC units in the new amendment. Greenwood - Hektoen said if an application for a building permit came in and Housing Inspection Services and the applicant had different interpretations, the applicant could appeal to the Zoning Code Interpretation Committee who would then review what other similar equipment means. Martin asked if this amendment were accepted and reworded would every building have to go through the same process. Howard said if there is to be some zoning code language replacing minor modification hearings, staff suggests that we add a requirement that anything that is on the front side of the building has to go through design review. She said the design review process would allow give and take, but would not require an administrative hearing process, which is more time consuming and involves notifying neighboring property owners and holding an administrative hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 11 of 15 Freerks asked if design review is only for the front of a building. Howard said that the Code language includes standards for mechanical equipment located on the ground and for mechanical that is located on the roof. It was not until recently that we started to see mechanical equipment mounted on the side of the building. Since there are no standards that address side - mounted equipment, these units have been constructed without any screening, which is counter to the intent of the ordinance. She said staff feels they need to close that loophole in the Code by putting language in the Code also requiring the equipment to be screened if it's going to be on the sides of the buildings. Freerks asked if Howard thinks the proposed language is strong enough. Howard said she would suggest even stronger language after having further discussion with the Commission and with HIS staff. Thomas asked if the balconies would be set back so the front of the balcony would be flush with the building wall. Howard said that what the proposed language says is that the air conditioner unit has to be behind the front building wall, so in order to locate the air conditioner on the balcony, the balcony would have to be at least partially recessed behind the plane of the front building wall. She said whatever the size of the balcony, the air conditioner unit would have to be set back in an alcove or behind a screen wall. Swygard asked if that applied only to the front side of the building. Howard said that was correct. Eastham asked if in the proposed Code language central air conditioning units are treated separately and if they are specifically allowed on the front side of a building if they are screened, even though there is no consideration of practicality in putting those units on the side or in the back. Howard said the intent was that they would have to show some impracticality, but the Code language as the staff submitted to the Commission is a bit weak and staff is suggesting that it be strengthened. Eastham said the consideration of when to allow air conditioning condensers on the front side of the building should address in some way the loss of efficiency by locating that unit on the side or back of the building. Howard said ostensibly the reason to do this would be because the runs are so long that it makes the unit less efficient and more difficult to maintain. She said she doubted that staff or the applicant would be able to quantify energy efficiency difference. She said the applicant had used 50 feet in his application. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Clark of 414 Market Street said the reason he proposed this amendment to the Code was going back to 2005 there were few restrictions on where air conditioning units could go. He said when the new Code was adopted, the restrictions weren't very well enforced. He said he has Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 12 of 15 done a lot of research on what the most efficient systems are and what the problems are with the long Freon runs. He said often the joints in these runs leak, it's hard to find them, there is Freon leaked into the environment, and the equipment has a reduced life. He said for those reasons, it's better to have shorter runs. He said there is also vandalism when they sit on the ground. He said that even when he has had units on roofs, residents have thrown them off. He said in the downtown area, it makes sense to put them where every resident has responsibility for their own unit. He says if you put them on the ground, they can settle, but on decks, they have a good, strong base and a longer life. He said there is more maintenance involved with having them on the ground. He said the benefits to having the units on the balconies are that they are close to the utility room, they have shorter line runs, less leaks, virtually no vandalism, lower head pressure that reduces wear on the equipment, and more efficiency. He said the sound of the units seem to go up when clustered. Clark said newer units are quite small versus the massive units of yore, that they are a little block measuring 30 "x30 "x30" that you can barely see. He said there was a question about water coming off a deck or a balcony because of air conditioning units, but he said the chance of water coming off a unit on a deck is slim. He said the only water a unit generates is when it condensates with the Freon line and it's such a minimal amount that it would dissipate prior to exiting the balcony. He said if they can keep the units on decks and balconies and allow them on the street - facing side, it is much easier to maintain and he'd really appreciate it. He said what he was concerned about in the reading of the Code was having the units located behind the street facing wall in the front. He said on some of the buildings he has constructed, they have deck areas that will sit out further than the street facing wall but they are still implemented into the building design. He said what he would like is to see the units on the decks but not be required to put them behind that street facing wall, especially on a smaller multifamily complex with seven or eight dwelling units. Clark said it's difficult to recess because it makes it look more commercial and doesn't keep the historic look of the area. He said the units are small and he doesn't think you would see them and it wouldn't have any effect on the view because they are behind a brick wall and a railing. He said he would work with staff to to allow them in this situation. He said he'd like to see wording in the amendment where all the air conditioning units have to be installed in the same manner. Martin asked why the applicant is using individual units rather than a large mechanical room if they can't all fit on the ground or on the roof. Clark said construction has gone toward individual utilities, and when you are combining all the utilities into one package who has to pay for them is a question. He said there is also a cost factor involved, and if a big unit quit working, no one would have air conditioning or heating. Freerks though it would be wise to defer this and talk about language more. She said she would then ask the applicant to waive the 45 day limitation. Clark agreed to that. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to defer an application for a zoning code amendment pertaining to the standards for central air conditioning units and other similar mechanical equipment on multifamily dwellings and mixed used buildings in the Central Business Zone. Martin seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 13 of 15 Freerks asked if there was anything specific the Commission wanted to see in the language. She they had already talked about adding some sort of measurement unit. She said she is in favor of making some of these situations not the norm, but rather the exception. She said she would like to do some research on her own. Freerks said perhaps size would come into play as to where or how the units are placed on a building. Thomas said his concern is the use of the balcony, despite the fact that the units are getting smaller, and how they could write the language so there is still useable space with the allowance of having these units on the balconies. Freerks asked if people stand on them and if it's a safety issue. Swygard agreed that it was a concern that the balconies aren't being built only to hold air conditioners. Freerks agreed that was a point that could be made clearer in the language. Eastham said he thought the run length for each air conditioning unit in the building might be considered in figuring out where the condenser goes on the outside of the building. He said that seemed to him to be a more rational approach in deciding where to allow the condensing unit and then if the unit is allowed on the front side of the building, the question becomes screening and balcony size so it's a functional balcony as well as a place to hold the unit. Howard asked for some clarification on what Eastham said. Eastham said he was referring to making a change that would limit certain run lengths to certain spots. Howard said there would always be the option to get a minor modification in any case if there are still further unusual circumstances. She said they are never going to be able to allow for every situation. Freerks said she thought visuals translate well and would like to see examples. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: September 6. 2012: Eastham moved to approve. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. OTHER: ADJOURNMENT: Thomas moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 14 of 15 The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote. z 0 Q 20 0 v ci w Z W Z V Z Z Nap ad W t9 � Z_ ZQ Z Q J IL Z H W W O N J 0 LL Z H W W 0 z E N j 0 0 N O O mZ O O =Z c0 U U p� C N ., C N (C°y'E N �C°;E N O cn .0 O N Q z co O 2_a Q z �0xxxxxXO a Q u u W2 u n w g U) x00z XOOz Q n 0x0 0 Y Y x 0 oXXXXXXX - w xxx XxxO co i XxxO Go xxx i x0x0 woxx ; x0x0 w Z_xXX 0xX XXxx Nxxx xxx i xxxo x w ti exxx xx0 i xxxx co x x x 0 i x x x Zxxx I xxxx xxxx i xxx �OXX x x x x M xxxx;xxx &XXOX ! xxx W 000mN LO AM Mxxx Z !Z LU - i XXx � X 00 00 WO 0 0 000 LO 00 oxxxx xxx M W T-XXXX i Xxx N Z � <Ziwaz N !2Xxxx 0004w xxx N G> T- X x X X i X X X Z Q Q W x w W ��= %CflCOMN1��M W N W a Z OWu.Y�cnH� =w W M FX00000 LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO CDC LO LO Lo Lo 0 w di�clLu w 0' I— ui CL ZGwwi dmwH- Z H W W 0 z E E N j 0 0 N O O mZ O O =Z c0 U U p� C N ., C N (C°y'E N �C°;E N O cn .0 O N Q z co O 2_a Q z a Q n n a Q u u W2 u n w g U) x00z XOOz Q n 0x0 0 Y Y x 0 a� M xxx XxxO oo xxx i x0x0 a) 0xX xX00 xxx xxx x xx0 i xxxX N M x x x 0 i x x x xxxx i xxx N M xxxx;xxx N W 000mN LO AM Z !Z :z � X 00 00 WO 0 0 000 LO 00 W W J Z � <Ziwaz 0004w Z Q Q W x w W W N W a Z OWu.Y�cnH� =w E E N j 0 0 N O O mZ O O =Z c0 U U p� C N ., C N (C°y'E N �C°;E N O cn .0 O N Q z co O 2_a Q z a Q n n a Q u u W2 u n w g U) x00z XOOz Q 0 Y Y Y IP21 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY OCTOBER 1, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer,Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood - Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEM REZ12- 00022: An application submitted by Saddlebrook Meadows Development for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family (OPD -8) Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to add a single story ranch style house plan to the previously approved OPD plan for property located at Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane. (45 -day limitation period: October 27) Miklo said the original plan was approved a number of years ago and included a variety of housing types. He said the applicant is now proposing introducing some one -story models to hit a cost level and to make units that would be accessible on one level with attached or detached garages. He showed drawings of what they would look like. He said these are very small lots and that's why this is before the Commission. He said this a planned development that would otherwise would have had to have been 5,0000 square foot lots with forty -five feet of frontage. He said some of these are in the 3000 square foot range He said there is more than normal scrutiny on this application because of the density. He said there isn't a lot of yard space for these lots and that's why they are including a full front porch to include some useable outdoor space. Eastham asked if these homes would gain anything in accessibility over the previous homes. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 2 of 7 Miklo said only six of the units could be under this proposal. Thomas asked how many square feet these will be. Steve Gordon said they are about 900 and one thousand square feet. He explained the layout of the houses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEMS CPA1 2-00003/REZ1 2-00011: Discussion of an application an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID -ORP) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard south of Preston Lane. Miklo said one of the questions that came up at the last meeting about this was what sort of traffic would be generated on these properties and how that might affect secondary access. He said the transportation planners did look at this in some more detail. He said a seven acre portion of the property would not be include in the traffic count as it will have direct access onto Camp Cardinal Boulevard. He said the estimates indicate that if the church develops and all the properties develop at roughly three units per acre, which is what you typically see in an RS -5 zone, they would be approaching secondary access requirements. He said if this property develops at roughly fifteen units per acre, it would exceed the secondary access guidelines, and that would either mean they would have to abide be the secondary access policies or limit the densities through a conditional zoning agreement. Miklo said as noted in the staff report, they are recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be amended but the actual zoning request be deferred until there is a solution for the building of Camp Cardinal Road and sanitary sewer for this area. He said when the time comes to make a decision on the rezoning there should be some restriction on the density so the overall density would not generate more traffic than 2500 vehicle trips per day. Eastham said Miklo's report indicated that the seven acre parcel along the southeast has ready access to Camp Cardinal Boulevard but the rest of the property does not because of the typography. He said they are looking at changing the Comprehensive Plan to allow a higher density of residential development of the subject property, and asked if the properties to the east are not part of what they are doing. Miklo stated that the Comprehensive Plan show those as lower density single family and given the circumstances of the properties and access, they wouldn't see changing that. Freerks asked where the church can be built. Miklo said it can be built in and RS -5 zone with a special exception. Eastham said he is weighing the situation where they would provide more residential development in one of these parcels than the other because of the limited access provided by Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo said the thought is that they would allow these to develop the RS -5 density and the possibility of the church, but whatever developed on the west side would be limited, so it's somewhere between five units per acre but probably not fifteen that the RM -12 zoning would allow. Eastham asked if the owners could provide secondary access to Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 3 of 7 Miklo said there might be a possibility in one area where the typography would allow it but it may be so expensive that any additional density doesn't pay for it, so there is some question that secondary access will occur there. Eastham asked if they are okay with just providing one access to these various parcels. Miklo said as long as it's kept to fewer than 2500 vehicle trips per day. CPA12- 00004: Discussion of an application an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Central District Plan Map for properties located at 905, 909 and 911 N. Governor Street and a property between 906 N. Dodge and 910 N. Dodge Street from Low to Medium Density Multi- family to Single- family & Duplex Residential. Eastham stated that he is a member of board of trustees of an organization that owns property within the subject area if there is eventually rezoning for these properties so he will not be participating in the discussion. Miklo said this is something they could wait until there's a larger Commission present, this is a City initiated application so they could certainly defer it, but if there is consensus among the Commission they can vote on it. Greenwood Hektoen said in terms of the applicant's statement on the legality of any Comprehensive Plan amendment the Commission is well within their authority to amend the Comprehensive Plan as proposed here. Freerks asked if Greenwood Hektoen could give them her version of what she feels in terms of previous court decision as it applies to a small piece of land. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Commission and City Council have the authority to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone the land. Thomas asked if it is typical in both this case and the Camp Cardinal item for the staff to suggest what the rezoning would be. Miklo said he thinks that's what you should consider whenever you are amending a Comprehensive Plan, what the consequences could be the future. Freerks said sometimes the Commission suggests a range. Thomas asked if they would be stating their position with respect to what they would anticipate this being zoned. Miklo said there are three zones that could implement the change proposed for the Comprehensive Plan, RS -5, RS -8 and RS -12. Freerks said she thought they didn't have to have a consensus on which zone it could be, and it would only be their opinion. Greenwood Hektoen said it wouldn't be binding. Freerks said that by voting for it or against it you are saying what zone it should be. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 4 of 7 Miklo asked if it might be better for the Commission not to state one over the other given that it might prejudice what ends up in front them in the future. Thomas said that it's not required that they give their opinion but they are welcome to give it. Greenwood Hektoen said if they had an application in front of them it would be difficult for them to say specifically what they would or wouldn't approved. She said they should remain open - minded knowing that any vote to rezone would be allowed based as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. REZONING ITEM REV 2- 00023: An application submitted by 3 Diamond Development for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to Medium Density Multifamily (RM20) zone for approximately 1.38 -acres of property located at 1030 William Street. Martin said she must recuse herself from this discussion as she represents both the buyers and the sellers. Eastham said he has a conflict with item REZ12 -00023 because he is a member of a board of an organization that owns property within the 200 foot objection limit for these changes. Freerks said there are only three Commission members so they won't be able to vote on this Miklo said that is unfortunate because the buyer of the property is working with a federal tax credit program that requires deadlines that they have to achieve. Howard said there is concern about multifamily housing in this area and making sure that anything new doesn't detract from the neighborhood. She said the applicant will have no problem signing a conditional zoning agreement because they are going to need the bonus to get the number of units they have proposed. She said they will have to go through a design review to meet the Towncrest design standards. Howard said this is right next to another redevelopment site so it might serve as a catalyst for that whole block. Swygard said Howard had talked about recommending that there be no drive adjacent to the single family housing on the south side of the property and asked what that would look like. Howard said the idea is to just have the one drive, and the applicant has no problem making it green space. Freerks said it seems to be quite a massive building with little articulation. Howard said they haven't designed the details yet. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS REZ12- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for amendments to Title 14, Zoning, modifying the location and screening standards for central air conditioning units for uses in multi - family and commercial zones. Howard said he agreed to defer this until some of the details were worked out. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 5 of 7 Discussion of a City initiated amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings to provide for the regulation of structures for the keeping of chickens. Miklo said that the City Council instructed staff to prepare some amendments for their consideration that would allow chickens. He said most of those regulations will be outside the Zoning Code and in the Animal Control section of the Code. He said because the Code does talk about accessory uses and livestock, for those amendments to go forward the Code would have to be amended to provide the keeping of chickens. He said the proposal is to do that and tie it to the other animal amendments which would have the actual regulations contained in them. He said the general regulations would be limited to no more than four hens, no roosters, it would be limited to detached single family property so multifamily properties wouldn't have this option, and there would be requirements for setbacks. Freerks said they should know what the setback is. Miklo said the neighbors would be notified about someone applying for one of these permits. Eastham asked if there were any provisions for removing unused accessory structures. Miklo said there isn't. He can check and see if that is true in the proposed animal control section. Greenwood Hektoen said that any violation of the animal control provisions that will be adopted will treated as a municipal infraction.. Eastham says he foresees people using these accessory structures for a time and then letting them sit unused. He says he doesn't know if that is a health hazard or a nuisance. Miklo said he thinks there are provisions requiring that they be cleaned and maintained. Eastham asked if the Commission is modifying the Zoning Code to allow for accessory structures that are used to keep chickens or is the Commission amending the Zoning Code for both those accessory structures and the keeping of chickens without having a structure to put them in. Freerks said you would want the chickens to have a certain amount of space but you wouldn't want it to be so huge, so she is curious how this works in a yard. She said those are good questions to have answers to for people especially when it gets to Council. Greenwood Hektoen said it would be discussed at Council when they approve the animal control provisions. Howard said there are pretty explicit conditions about how the coops must be built and what will be required to ensure that they are humane. Howard said the answer to Eastham's question is yes, this would allow both. She said this is an amendment to say keeping the chickens is an allowed accessory use as long as you do it according to the rules in Title8 -4, and the structures are also allowed and would have to be built according to the Code. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 6 of 7 Eastham asked if the person who owns the chickens will necessarily have to provide a structure for them. Howard said they will. Thomas said he has concerns about the limitation to detached single family uses. He said you might find a clustered community having chickens, so his reading of this is that chickens would not be permitted in that situation. Miklo said one of the objections so far is that college kids will start having chickens and they will wreak havoc so the proposal is starting with just single family. Martin said in a condo association if the rules don't allow for that, it makes sense but what about zero lots or would that have to be a special request. Freerks said they can move it along and then look at expanding it later. OFreerks said if you have a twenty foot setback from either your neighbor's lot, and the lot is thirty feet wide, you don't have room for it. OTHER None. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote. z N N G 2 0 c� O v z It W ?VT-2 LU 0 NQN� ad z Z~ O LL za Q J a Z p W W O U. K � L 7 L 7 N va '00 v N 0 (nZ N ° �z co U p� U m x v 4 C N �, C ° C N E C y E N to N Q 0 tp N ° E NOXXXXxxO 0xx 4? II II W II II w xxx0 x00z xOOz r w a ° Y Y Y oxxxxxxx0 wxw O O ; xx w O as XXXX x x x i XXxO co cooxx xxxex0x0 : x0x0 �x Wxx O x i XXXX 00 n �x xxx x i x x x m n exxX xx0 11 xxxx N M XxXOixxx n XXXX xxxx i xxxx xxx N �OXX xxxx;xxx 1 X X X X N CDXxOx x x x a \ \ \ \ \ MXxXO o000000o LO i XXX LO LO exxxx w_ xxx M J W J t0 coxxxx z ; xxx N aXxxx J 2 W xxx O� XXXX 0 < w X X x x �W (fl(flMNI��M a Y N z< Q N Q w LY 0I-W x w W— IL H V' X00000000 W N W d W W o Q 2 W z CWLL.Y'ZtAF a -� U ivi00ao"�F- W0'F- xocW?aaw Wa1 -C9�� wU)Lu Q }QwOQ =W zowwx2U)P Z p W W O U. K MN � L 7 L 7 N va '00 v N 0 (nZ N ° �z co U p� U m x v 4 C N �, C ° C N E C y E N to N Q 0 tp N ° E c 0xx 4? II II W II II w xxx0 x00z xOOz r w a ° Y Y Y ti wxw O O ; xx w O M x x x i xxx0 xxxex0x0 Wxx O i xx- 00 xxx i xxxx m xx0 11 xxxx N M XxXOixxx xxxx i xxx N M xxxx;xxx N Z W a \ \ \ \ \ W HW o000000o LO LO LO LO LO w_ J W J z J 2 W a= 0 0 < w x v a Y N z< Q N Q w LY 0I-W x w W— IL H V' W N W d W o Q 2 W z CWLL.Y'ZtAF -� MN � L 7 L 7 N va '00 v N 0 (nZ N ° �z co U p� U m x v 4 C N �, C ° C N E C y E N to N Q 0 tp N ° E d<QZ aQ 11 Z 4? II II W II II w x00z xOOz w w a ° Y Y Y =P�2i2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY OCTOBER 4, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer (via phone), Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Greenwood - Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders, Dell Richard, Jennifer Baum, Chris Welu, Shirley Lindell, Sharon Gebraus, David Porush, Sharon Jeter, JoAnn Binton, Ken Behles, Steve Gorden, Shannon Gassman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of CPA12 -00003 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use map to change the land use designation of the property located between Camp Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID -ORP) to residential eight to sixteen dwelling units per acres and that it be approved subject to the text of the plan noting that environmentally sensitive areas and limited street access may result in development at a lower density. The Commission voted 6 -0 (Eastham abstaining) to recommend amending the Central District Comprehensive Plan future land use map to show 905, 909 and 911 North Governor Street along with the parcel located between 906 North Dodge and 910 North Dodge Streets as single - family duplex residential. The Commission voted 5 -0 (Eastham and Martin abstaining,) to recommend approval of REZ12 -00023 to rezone approximately 1.3 acres of property at 1030 Williams Street from Overlay Design Review - Commercial Office (ODR -CO -2) zone to Overlay Design Review - Medium Density Multifamily (ODR- RM20) zone subject to conditional agreement as specified in the staff memo and to include the incorporation through the design review process private and semi - private outdoor spaces called for in the Southeast District Plan. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ12- 00022, an amendment to the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to allow up to six single -story models. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings to provide for the regulation of structures for the keeping of chickens. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 15 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEMS CPA12- 00003 /REZ12- 00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID -ORP) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard south of Preston Lane. Miklo said staff is recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be amended for this area to show the possibility of multifamily development given the topography and the difficulty of providing access to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, which would be necessary in order for it to develop as an office park as the current Comprehensive Plan shows. He said staff had provided the Commission some traffic estimates from the transportation planners indicating that when this property as well as the adjacent properties to the east, which share access to Camp Cardinal Road, are fully developed based on the currently anticipated zoning there would likely be a secondary access issue, meaning that the amount of traffic generated from development of these properties would result in over 2500 vehicle trips per day on Camp Cardinal Road. He said that should be taken into account when the zoning is eventually decided on for this property even though staff would recommend that the Comprehensive Plan show it as being multifamily. Miklo said there may be some restrictions on the eventual density of development due to that secondary access concern. He said staff would not want this property to develop to the extent that it would restrict development anticipated on the adjacent properties. He said if there is a secondary access route identified to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, the situation would change and would possibly result in higher densities in the area. Miklo said in terms of the rezoning, there are some concerns about the condition of Camp Cardinal Road and there would need to be an agreement to improve that road before it would be ripe for development. He said there is also an issue with sanitary sewer for the southern third of the property, which will rely on sewer service through some adjacent property. He said until those two infrastructures issues are resolved, staff recommends that rezoning on this property be deferred. He said staff is meeting with area property to discuss possible means to improve Camp Cardinal Road. Eastham asked if staff is recommending holding off on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Miklo clarified that they are recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan change to show this has potential for multifamily residential with a caveat that the eventual density of it may be restricted due to sensitive areas and lack of secondary access. Eastham asked who would be paying for improvements to Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo said it isn't anticipated that this would be a public project and that the adjacent property owners who benefit from the road would need to come to an agreement on how to finance it. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 15 Eastham asked if that applies to the sewer extension as well. Miklo said there might be a private agreement between the property owners, but the City would not fund that sanitary sewer line. Eastham asked if staffs recommendation would be that if Camp Cardinal Road is the only road providing access to all three properties the density on the subject property would be reduced so as not to go over the recommended vehicle traffic. Miklo said that is correct. Eastham asked if staff had given any consideration to trying to figure out how to reduce the trips per day generated by development of all three properties. Miklo explained that the Comprehensive Plan currently shows the properties east of the road as being appropriate for lower density single family residential, so those would be considered as 3 to 5 units per acre, and that is what the estimates are from the Transportation Planners. He said they don't feel they should be restricted to fewer than that because the entire area could develop, but if it developed at the full potential of the RM -12 zone, the lowest density multiple family zone, it would put traffic beyond what they feel is appropriate for secondary access. Freerks opened public hearing. Glenn Siders of Southgate Management Companies represented the applicant He said they concur with the staff recommendation and encourages the Commission to move forward with the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said he is still debating this access issue, and they will be having more dialogue in the next few days with the adjoining property owners. He said he wanted to correct a Commissioner's statement and clarify that there are actually four, not three, owners. He said they would defer the rezoning of the RM -12. Dell Richard identified himself as the attorney for St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, the neighbor to the east of the subject property. He said they are generally supportive of the staffs recommendations and recommend that City go forward with the Comprehensive Plan but defer the zoning issues. He said, referencing a memo that he passed out to the Commission, what they are concerned about is that the staff has been a bit conservative in the trips per day calculations and how the rest of these properties are going to develop. He said they are coming to the conclusion that there will be 4500 trips per day from the site rather than the staffs estimate of 2500. He said their main concern is that they look beyond what's being proposed because if the church gets locked into a situation where they only have a single access and there is no separate access, and Southgate gets a zoning that allows for a lot of units, they are essentially unable to expand the church. He said they are starting out with a 40,000 to 50,000 square foot facility but thirty years from now, there could be a need for a substantially larger space. He just wants to suggest that the Commission think in longer terms that the staff has suggested. Freerks said these estimates put the number of dwelling units at absolutely the maximum that could be, but that doesn't always happen. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend that CPA12 -00003 be approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use map to change the land use designation of the property Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 15 located between Camp Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID -ORP) to residential eight to sixteen dwelling units per acres and that be approved subject to the text of the plan noting that environmentally sensitive areas and limited street access may result in development at a lower density. Eastham seconded. Eastham said he thinks that re- designating this area in the Comprehensive Plan to residential development is something that he can support. He said there's been a lot of information to suggest that this particular tract is not needed for the community to develop an office research park or office area. He said this is a great exercise for him in doing one of the fundamental things that he understands the Commission is to do, which is to assure infrastructure to support whatever development is planned. He said the vehicular access is one of the more problematic parts of developing this and the adjoining tracts. He said since improvement of Camp Cardinal Road is going to be necessary for any kind development, and that's going to be a private undertaking, that and the possibility of a secondary access on the northern part of this tract is also going to be a private undertaking, his preference would be before they get to zoning consideration that the adjacent property owners come to some kind of agreement among themselves that divvies up the available vehicle trips per day in a way that meets everyone's expectations for future residential development. He said if that doesn't happen, he's not sure what he would do as a Commissioner and so encourages the parties to work out this issue themselves. Weitzel said there is ample precedence in this area for residential development and they have also created a number of areas elsewhere in the community for office parks, and residential seems to make sense here. He said they really aren't at the point of deciding how the rezoning would take place, so they are just amending the Comprehensive Plan, and he is in favor of it. Martin agreed with what Weitzel said. She thinks it's a good area for residential and obviously the sensitive areas are going to dictate what can be done. Freerks agreed, and said the piece of land is scenic yet challenging. She said as had been noted that there is ample office park area in the community. She said she will vote in favor of this. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Eastham moved to recommend that the rezoning REZ12 -00011 be deferred indefinitely, until there's a plan to provide street access and sanitary sewer. Weitzel seconded. Freerks agreed that they are not ready for this stage, and there is work to do. She said a cluster development might be appropriate. A vote was taken and motion carried 7 -0. CPA12- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Central District Plan Map for properties located at 905, 909 and Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 15 911 N. Governor Street and a property between 906 N. Dodge and 910 N. Dodge Street from Low to Medium Density Multi- family to Single- family & Duplex Residential. Eastham said he has a conflict with item CPA12 -00004 and REZ12 -00023 because he is a member of a board if an organization that owns property within the 200 foot objection limit for these changes. Miklo said the current Comprehensive Plan shows this area as appropriate for low to medium density multifamily and that classification is a hold -over from the 1960s and 1970s when this area was zoned R3 -B, which was a high density multifamily zone. He said this is the only R3 -B zoning in town and is a result of a court order based on a previous down - zoning attempt. He said that the Comprehensive Plan currently shows the adjacent properties as being appropriate for medium density multi - family. He said the City's philosophy and approach to neighborhoods has changed since the 1960s and 70s when this zoning pattern was first established. He said at that time there was an encouragement to redevelopment older neighborhoods where there is now the philosophy to preserve those neighborhoods by more moderate density zoning, historic district zoning, a strategic plan that supports rejuvenation of neighborhoods through programs like the UniverCity Partnership and multiple down - zonings in other parts of the city. He said staff feels it is appropriate given those policies and that change in direction to designate this area for single family or duplex, which would indicate anything from the RS -5 but more likely the RS -8 or RS -12 zoning in the future. Greenwood Hektoen said there were some statements made at the last meeting about whether the Commission had the authority to approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and it is her legal conclusion that they do have that authority, and any claim related to a rezoning to implement the Comprehensive Plan would defensible. Weitzel asked about the purpose of the Residential Neighborhood Stabilization Zone and how that would compare. He asked if it would be appropriate in this location. Miklo explained that there are two neighborhood stabilization zones, the RNS -12 which has generally been applied when an area has been rezoned from RM -12 low density multifamily to eliminate the possibility of future apartment buildings. He said that could be a future consideration for this area although that generally applies where there is existing building stock. He said in this case, there are only two houses and an office building. The RMS -20 zone generally applies to more dense areas and would allow a greater density the current zoning for these properties. Freerks opened public hearing. Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said they have a petition just so the Commission knows how some of the neighbors feel. She said the petition says that the signers encourage RS -8 zoning. Chris Welu of 619 Brown St. said she has always lived in the North Side of Iowa City. She said she is there to support the City's proposal to amend the land use of 911 North Governor and the adjacent properties to single family and duplex residential. She said she feels this change would align with what is currently in the surrounding neighborhood. She said she understands that development can be a positive step for any neighborhood, but the development needs to be compatible with the needs of the neighborhood. She said a mixed neighborhood is appealing to those who live on the North Side. She said it's a positive to have families, singles, couples young and old living in the neighborhood. She said the North Governor and North Dodge area Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 15 has such potential to be a sought after area when looking for housing rather than another area of short-term renters with no vested interest in the neighborhood. Shirley Lindell 804 Dewey Street said she support keeping the area as single family. Sharon DeGraus of 519 Brown Street said her family feels the same as the other speakers. She said they are supportive of what Chris Welu said, wanting it to be single family or duplex. She said the two existing apartments are enough of that kind of residential building to have in the neighborhood. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend amending the Central District Comprehensive Plan future land use map to show 905, 909 and 911 North Governor Street along with the parcel located between 906 North Dodge and 910 North Dodge Streets as single family duplex residential. Weitzel seconded the motion. Swygard said she thought this was a very appropriate use of these parcels of land, and it's a great opportunity to move ahead with neighborhood stabilization that the City has been talking about, and she will support it. Martin and Dyer said they agreed. Thomas said he wanted to support the move toward single family and duplex residential, and he said they need to emphasize the fact that the neighborhood stabilization issue is very active now and any future plans reflect that goal. He said he would also like to remind all the Commission to refer to the housing goals in the Central District Plan because he thinks they sometimes tend to forget them and they are at the core of neighborhood stabilization and care should be taken to adhere to them. Freerks said the change in the Comp Plan will be more consistent with the City's current attitude about neighborhoods, which has changed dramatically since the 1970s and which Freerks thinks is a good thing. She said the surrounding properties suggest single family duplex as being the best and more consistent than R3 -B. She thinks because it's the only R3 -B property in the city says that it doesn't really fit into the community, especially in a neighborhood like this. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6 -0 (Eastham abstaining) REZONING ITEM REZ12- 00023: An application submitted by 3 Diamond Development for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to Medium Density Multifamily (RM20) zone for approximately 1.38 -acres of property located at 1030 William Street. Martin disclosed that she had a conflict with this item and would be abstaining. Miklo said this property is in the Towncrest area which is zoned Commercial Office. He said the proposal is to rezone it to Medium Density Multifamily. He said there is also a design review Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 15 overlay that requires any commercial or residential structures in this neighborhood to be reviewed by the design review committee for compliance with the Towncrest Design Plan. He showed photos of the current building, the neighborhood, the proposed building and another building constructed elsewhere by the developer. He said the proposal would include front yard, the building and parking behind it. He said staff has some concerns about a driveway next to the single family homes to the south, and the applicant has agreed to remove the driveway from the proposed development. Miklo said the current zoning would allow this property to continue as office or be redeveloped with office and up to 15 units per acre for residential on upper floors. He said the proposed rezoning would increase the current density to twenty -four units per acre but because this is senior housing there would be a bonus that would allow a twenty -five increase in density for an overall development of 41 housing units on this property. He said to take advantage of that density bonus and the parking standard that applies to senior housing residents would be restricted to persons 55 or older or persons with disabilities and could not be available to the general public as an apartment building. He said the Comprehensive Plan for this area is the Southeast District Plan which encourages the redevelopment of Towncrest as a mixed use area that would contain retail, office and residential and there are policies in the Plan that staff feels this proposal meets in terms of encouraging new investment in the area, removing some of the older buildings in poor condition, and reconfiguring the site to put the building up front and the parking behind which would make Towncrest a more pedestrian friendly main street style of development. He said staff is recommending rezoning of this property with the conditions that it would be reserved for and occupied by elders or persons with disabilities and that no drives or parking would be allowed between the building and the south property line and the same area would be maintained landscape open space to provide a buffer to the adjacent single family area. Dyer asked if caretakers who are of a different age group could live with elders in this building. Miklo responded that is the case in terms of the zoning code. Freerks asked if these would all be one and two bedroom units. Miklo stated that there are 20 one - bedroom units and 21 two- bedroom units totaling 41 units. Freerks said the Commission received a letter that night asking how the City would police this and make sure it remains elder housing. Miklo said it is a requirement of the rezoning and to get the bonus and reduced parking so that's a permanent situation unless the zoning is changed, and it would take a review by the Commission and City Council Freerks asked if this would be tied to some sort of funding. Miklo said it may be and the applicant could address that. He said the proposal to take advantage of the senior housing bonus would tie it to senior housing and staff is recommending that that also be a condition of the zoning agreement that would go with the property in perpetuity unless changed by the City. Greenwood Hektoen said even if there is a condition that this be senior housing, part of the financing would not modify the zoning. She said the requirement is that it's required to be used Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 15 as senior living. Thomas asked what would happen if the building failed as a senior housing facility. Miklo responded that they would then have to reduce the density in order to stay compliant in the RM -20 zone. Freerks asked if that meant that some of the units would have to be empty. Miklo said some of the units would have to be joined together to be larger. He said that based on some of the statistics that have been discussed recently with the amendments to the Zoning Code, demographics show that there is going to be a great demand for senior housing for the next several decades. He said it's the fastest growing segment of Iowa City, despite this being a college town. Freerks opened public hearing. David Porush with 3 Diamond Development reiterated that part of the financing for this building involves federal tax credits, an allocation of credits that the State gets Iowa Finance Authority, and awards those credits to certain projects. He said if they are awarded the project they would provide the majority of the funding for the building. He said along with that is a restriction for the same senior age restriction for the use for that property for 30 years. He said failure to meet the requirements of the tax credits is an overly burdensome penalty on them as developers. Freerks asked if that would be age and disability and /or disability or just age for their financial requirements Porush said their intent is for age restricted, but he's not sure about the disability. Freerks asked how many of these projects they have done for elder housing. Porush said they had one in Dubuque, one in Chicago and one in Oswego, Illinois. He said some of the similar amenities provided would be exercise facilities, computer rooms, amenities that promote healthy, independent living so that they stay living on their own longer. Freerks asked if they have staff on site. Porush said there is always a property manager and maintenance as well, and staff is there to ensure that applicants meet the income and age requirements. Dyer asked how they determine how many apartments to make available for people with disabilities. Porush said they follow the guidelines of the Iowa Finance Authority as to how many units need to be handicapped accessible. Dyer said what concerns her is that people may need other things besides wide doors and accessible light switches. She said they may need some sort of special equipment or bathing area, and she wants to know if those are anticipated. Ken Behles of Behles and Behles Architects said he has designed 18 of these buildings of various sorts of elderly housing, and he's very familiar with the various accessibility and Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 15 adaptability requirements. He said for the question that was just asked - one thing that is unusual about these buildings is because a component of their financing is composed of federal tax credits, the Iowa Finance Authority imposes a requirement that one - hundred percent of the units meet FHA requirements for adaptability. He said what that means is that any unit that can be accessed by an elevator or on the ground floor must meet the FAFS that stipulates an accessible route, wide doors, accessible kitchens and bathrooms in terms of their floor area and distance between elements. He said all units in this building can be turned into an accessible unit. He said that's typical of any tax credit building within the country, and these are federal rules that apply. Dyer said she was glad to hear that. Behles said ten percent will be fully accessible from day one and the rest adaptable. Swygard asked if there are any windows on the south side of the building. Behles said there are some small windows in the stairs that are at the ends of the building and there is also a window at the end of the corridor so there are some windows on both the north and the south ends. Swygard asked if those windows are on all three floors. Behles said there are. Swygard asked in regard to that landscaped open space in place of the drive what kind of landscaping they would consider putting there. Behles said they are willing to eliminate that drive without shifting the building so the landscaping they anticipate would be some significant screening in the parking areas and a screened area to the south of the building where there is a single family home. Sharon Jeter of 2434 Wayne Ave. said her concern with this area is that it is subsidized housing. She said there is already subsidized housing in the area and she just wants to know that the proposed building will be well maintained and nice looking. She said as a homeowner she has witnessed the decline of the subsidized housing since she has lived there. She said she and others who attended the Towncrest planning meetings did ask that there be some senior housing in the area. Freerks asked if she thought that question had been answered adequately. Jeter said to some degree but she just wants to be assured that it will be well maintained once it's built. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned about any discussion if it is going to subsidized housing. Porush said this building is what is called affordable housing. He said residents have to meet certain income requirements, and is not to be confused with low income housing. He said it is to provide comfortable, safe housing for seniors only who can benefit by more affordable rents than what a market rate unit would be. He assured that the building will be maintained in perpetuity so that people are going to want to rent. He said they want to be the best choice in terms of quality and affordability so the residents stay for many decades. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 15 Freerks asked if there is a maintenance fee charged to each person. Porush said it is included in the rent. Swygard asked if there was an on -site manager. Porush said there is. JoAnn Benton of 2505 Wayne Avenue expressed that she likes the idea of having elderly housing in the neighborhood. She said one of her concerns is that there is not enough green space. She said she is happy to hear that the building will be well maintained because the neighborhood does need a lot of help. Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to recommend approval of REZ12 -00023 to rezone approximately 1.3 acres of property at 1030 Williams Street from Design Review Overlay - Commercial Office (ODR -CO -2) zone to Design Review Overlay - Medium Density Multifamily (ODR- RM20) zone subject to conditional agreement as specified in the staff memo. Swygard seconded. Thomas said he supports everything about this project but he has some concerns about the building. He said it's a request for a change to an RM zone so it's listed under the residential zoning categories. He said he was looking at the Towncrest Neighborhood Report as part of the Southeast District Plan, and it states "that to attract a wider variety of households, including singles, families and the elderly, the redevelopment plan or any new zoning designation for Towncrest should require or encourage private and semi - private outdoor spaces that are accessible and safe. Examples include private spaces such as forecourts, rooftop gardens, patios, open court yards and play yards as well as a public gathering space, a plaza or neighborhood green with features such as landscaping and shade trees, outside seating and dining areas, a unique water feature, playground or public art that encourage visitors and neighborhood residents to linger." He said he doesn't see that in this proposal. He said with this project being designed for elderly it would be especially appropriate, because the elderly are less prone to spend time away from the building. He said that coupled with the fact that it is adjacent to a single family residential zone calls for the kinds the features that are described in the district plan. Freerks asked how final the drawing was and how much latitude the Commission has. Miklo said this is a concept plan, and he pointed out a patio in the front of the building. He said there may be the opportunity to do more usable open space where the driveway is being replaced. He said the Commission could make it a condition that there be more outdoor space, or rely on staff to negotiate as part of the design review that will occur. Freerks said that public hearing is closed but it would be a good time to have discussion about these things. Miklos said it's generally helpful to bring those questions up before public hearing is closed so that the Commission is able to discuss them with the applicant. Greenwood Hektoen said because it is a design review overlay you have the assurance that it Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 11 of 15 will be in front of staff before it gets to final design. Freerks said that is something the Commission could emphasize right now as an amendment to the motion. She said she never feels comfortable making design decisions but feels that it's important to emphasize the fact that there's something stressed in the plan that needs to be addressed. She said they have wanted these types of things to happen and there's someone who wants to do it and now is the time to make something work well so that as things come up in the future they can be positive. She said she would not be opposed to making sure there are some more outdoor living features. Thomas said if the kind of features described in the district plan could be incorporated into the design so the massiveness of the building would also be addressed, that would be his goal. He said it's a large building without any sort of articulation. Swygard said she doesn't feel the need to make it a condition. She said these are the kinds of things they like to see and given that it has to go to design review, she feels comfortable with that. Weitzel said he felt the same way. Dyer said she is torn. She said she thinks it might be wise to put expectations on the part of the design review committee with regard the plan that's in place. Miklo said at this point it would be appropriate to amend the motion to include some conditions. He said there is a design review overlay that has some general guidelines that would need to be adhered to. Thomas moved to amend the motion to include the incorporation through the design review process of the kinds of private and semi - private outdoor spaces called for in the Southeast District Plan. Dyer seconded. Freerks said this amendment adds emphasis to the fact that the Commission wants to see some of these features added, and she said she thinks it could be done without tremendous effort and could add a great deal to the building and the tenants would enjoy this. Dyer asked if this is the first property to be developed in the Towncrest Plan. Miklo said it is. Dyer said she thinks it's especially important then that the first one be completed cognizant of the requirements of the Plan so that will be a precedent for future buildings. A vote was taken and the motion to amend carried 4 -1 (Weitzel opposed). A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Eastham and Martin abstained). REZ12- 00022: An application submitted by Saddlebrook Meadows Development for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family (OPD -8) Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to add a single story ranch style house Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 12 of 15 plan to the previously approved OPD plan for property located at Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane. Miklo said this is before the Commission because it is a Planned Development. He said at the time the original Planned Development was approved there were several zoning variations or waivers granted to allow a higher number of units on the property, narrower and smaller lots than normally would have been required in the Medium Density Single Family Zone (RS -8). He said as part of that approval there were a series of house plans that were approved for the smaller single - family lots. He said all of those were two -story, with either attached or detached garages. He said the proposal is to add a one -story model with similar design characteristics with either attached or detached garages. He said up to six of those would be allowed on the lots that he indicated on a map. He said adding these models would make them more affordable in construction costs and to provide housing where all aspects of the dwelling are on one level so they are more accessible. He said staff is recommending that the item be approved. Freerks opened public hearing. Steve Gordon of AM Management who manages the Saddlebrook Development said this was approved years ago and then delayed as the housing market changed, and it's now started again. He said this is a way to get more variety and a different price point on the single - family homes while keeping the same character. Eastham asked if the floor plans for these homes have a single level throughout the interior and if there's a detached garage would there be a no step entrance into the house. Gordon said it would be one level and it would have a no step entrance on the front of the house. Martin asked if some of them are completely zero entry. Gordon said the ones they are building now are zero entry but are two -story, so that only affects the first level, but with the proposed units they would be zero entry and you could access all aspects of the house. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ12- 00022, an amendment to the preliminary Planned Development Overlay OPD Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to allow up to six single -story models. Weitzel seconded. Weitzel said in addition to the objectives and market forces already stated he thinks in some ways this is a very soft - handed approach to urban design. He said an organically developed neighborhood would probably have different heights so this is a very positive aspect for the aesthetics of the neighborhood and it's a very limited number of lots. Eastham said he remembers the huge number of housing types in the Longfellow Neighborhood where he used to live so he is quite pleased that they are looking at two different housing levels for this subdivision. Swygard said as a person who lives in a one floor home approaching the time when one would Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 13 of 15 downsize and look at retirement, she can appreciate a one -floor design. Freerks said it's nice to see these more affordable, more accessible units here. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS REZ12- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for amendments to Title 14, Zoning, modifying the location and screening standards for central air conditioner units for uses in multifamily and commercial zones. Freerks said staff has asked for this to be deferred until the October 18th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to defer REZ12 -00015 until the October 18th meeting. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0 Discussion of a City initiated amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings to provide for the regulation of structures for the keeping of chickens. Miklo said City Council has asked staff to propose some amendments that would allow the keeping of up to four hens for single - family properties. He said most of the regulations dealing with keeping of chickens will be in the animal control ordinance and the Commission has been provided with a draft of the language that is being considered. He said because the Zoning Code has an accessory use provision that currently defines chickens as livestock and therefore not permitted, it would be necessary to amend that section of the Code to allow the keeping of chickens and then refer to the more detailed Animal Control provisions that will have bulk of the regulations. He said a question came up at the informal meeting if this could be expanded to other than single - family dwellings. Staffs advice would be not to do that at this time. He said the thought is to establish it initially for single - family residences and see how that works. Freerks opened public hearing. Shannon Gassman of 741 S. Seventh Avenue identified herself as one of the organizers of the I -CLUCK group. She said she is encouraging the Commission to support this effort. She said it has worked well in Cedar Rapids and she thinks it will work well in Iowa City. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham move to recommend an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings to provide for the regulation of structures for the keeping of chickens. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 14 of 15 Martin seconded. Thomas said he was happy to see this, coming from the San Francisco Bay Area where this was allowed. He was surprised to find that it is not allowed in this Midwestern city. He thanked (- CLUCK for picking this up and carrying it forward. Eastham said he is happy to support this revision to the Zoning Code because it's obviously something people are interested in and there's a well thought out structure and set of regulations and it will work out. Swygard and Freerks said they had some specific questions about the policy presented and wanted to know where to take those questions. Greenwood Hektoen said to take it to City Council. Weitzel said this is clearly something that has public support but it shows how much complication goes into the regulations, which is probably why it hasn't happened before. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. OTHER: ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. z 0 N N G 20 t9 0 z W — L) 04 C-4 Nap 2 GG �LU O z I- za z a J CL O z H W W O LL z E N 2 j ` j T O N o o �M- p� ww w coN .0 o U) m0 E 0 a a n u °- u n w u n w g XOoz XOOz a �oxxXIXXXX x X I X X x o x X X I x X x 0 a) W x w O i x x W O � X X x I xxxp w co 6XX X0X0 0 -xxx X X X I xxxx X Lu NXXxixXXw 0XXIXXOO c0 czXXxIxxxx x x x I X x x x co �Xxx I XXXX 0�xx x x x I XXXX x x x oxxox I Xxx MXXX -IXxx N °XXXX I x x x M U) aX COCOMNI�CnCf�M X X X I X x X N °xxxx I xxx N CD %- T- X X X X I X X X U) W_ V=CO (oMNf- W U) M y T T T T T T T T W d �-X00000000 Cn 2 Cn Cn a Cn Cn W 0U.<LUx a. 0 LiQ - *. ma: a �aY ?a4N av6-j < W uj =�Wy W2f< =02 2Lu0ui wU)wIL IL 4�00W a�oaoY zw ocW2e m -3 O z H W W O LL z E E N 2 j ` j T O N o o �M- p� ww w coN .0 o U) m0 E n G a n a a n u °- u n w u n w g XOoz XOOz a Q x X I X X x V- �O W x w O i x x W O V-xxx;xxxo m X X X I X X Lu � 0XXIXXOO czXXxIxxxx mxxo I xxxx x x x i x x x M !NXXXX!XXx N M �Xxxxixxx N U) �V= COCOMNI�CnCf�M �X00000000 W W_ J W z W J 2 a x 0U.<LUx a. 0 VQ`1Na��J < W W�E..WaF 20C W2f< =02 2Lu0ui IL ZGWIXi.Y<tn E E N 2 j ` j T O N o o �M- p� ww w coN .0 o U) m0 E n G a n a a n u °- u n w u n w g XOoz XOOz a 0 Y Y Y DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — October 9, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:33 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Kingsley Botchway MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter, Joseph Treloar STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL Recommendation to change the Board's 45 -day reporting period to 90 -days. -1 IP23 REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE Jensen and Porter were appointed to the nominating committee at the September 11th meeting. Jensen reported that the committee had not been able to meet but she did talk to each Board member to see who had interest in serving as an officer, and did make contact with Porter via e-mail regarding those discussions. Members interested in serving as Chair were Treloar, Jensen, and Botchway. Members interested in serving as Vice Chair were Treloar, Jensen, Botchway, and Porter. CONSIDER MOTION TO FIX METHOD OF VOTING Motion by King, seconded by Jensen to prescribe the method of voting by a voice vote and use majority vote for the basis for decision. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF CHAIRPERSON Motion by King to nominate Treloar for Chair. There were no other nominations. Motion by King, seconded by Jensen to close nominations. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF VICE - CHAIRPERSON Motion by King to nominate Jensen for Vice Chair. There were no other nominations. Motion by King, seconded by Botchway to close nominations. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. (Vice Chair Jensen took over the meeting) CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by King and seconded by Botchway to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 09/11/12 • Minutes of the meeting on 09/19/12 • ICPD Quarterly Summary Report (Quarter 1) IAIR /PCRB,2012 PCRB October 9, 2012 Page 2 • ICPD Quarterly Summary Report (Quarter 2) IAIR /PCRB,2012 • ICPD Quarterly Summary Report (Quarter 3) IAIR /PCRB,2012 Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. NEW BUSINESS Discussion regarding 45 -day reporting period — The Board discussed the length of time they thought was necessary to complete their public report regarding a complaint. Generally the 45 -day reporting period is enough time unless they need to request additional information or conduct interviews, etc. The Board agreed that if they were to request the reporting period be changed to 90 -days it would make all the timelines consistent and they would make every effort to continue to be thorough but finish the report as soon as possible to turn around a quick response to the Complainant. Motion by Botchway, seconded by King to recommend changing the 45 -day reporting period from 45 -days to 90 -days. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. The Board also agreed to put on the next agenda for discussion, other additional recommendations. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION King stated he may have problems with Tuesday meetings but would know more at a later date. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle stated that if there were any updates to the Board member contact sheet to please let her know. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by King and seconded by Botchway to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. PCRB October 9, 2012 Page 3 Open session adjourned at 5:58 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:41 P.M. Motion by King, seconded by Botchway to set the level of review for PCRB Complaint #12 -03 to 8- 8- 7(13)(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. Motion by King, seconded by Botchway to set the level of review for PCRB Complaint #12 -04 to 8- 8- 7(13)(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. Motion by King, seconded by Botchway to forward the Public Report as presented for PCRB Complaint #12 -04 to City Council. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • November 13, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to 11/20) • November 20, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • December 11, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • January 8, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • February 12, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm Motion by King, seconded by Botchway to move the regular monthly meeting from November 13th to either Thursday, November 15th, or Tuesday, November 20th pending room availability. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by King, seconded by Botchway. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:47 P.M. II II II II II 1Q d b O r H y Hn Cy N �zz O � C N � � O� O C* oIt oxao *q tq dC CD °I Y CD co a ° m CD w w N w LA N � W O ✓ 1^I /ti IY A DC yC yC �C �C D'C O � yC yC I 1Q d b O r H y Hn Cy N �zz O � C N � � O� O POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 October 9, 2012 CD q G7 _ an7 > —4 ......d r..:.�v�+t To: City Council c'> ° s Complainant City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #12 -04 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #12 -04 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -76 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ( "Report ") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on June 18, 2012. As required by Section 8 -8- 5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on September 17, 2012. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (13)(1)(a), On the record with no additional investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on October 9, 2012. FINDINGS OF FACT On June 15, 2012 at approximately 20:28:00 hours, Officer A was patrolling in the area of Dolphin Lake Point Enclave, 2401 Hwy 6 East, when he observed that the tail light of the Complainant's vehicle was not functioning properly. The vehicle was stopped and the Complainant was asked to step to the rear of the vehicle to show that the rear light wasn't functioning. Officer A recognized the passenger from previous involvement with illegal drugs and noticed blunts in the passengers lap. Officer A asked the Complainant for permission to search the vehicle. The Complainant denied permission to search the vehicle. Based on the above information, a K -9 unit was called to the scene. The K -9 unit walked around the car and alerted the officer to the presence of drugs. After the dog alerted the officer, the officer searched the interior of the vehicle, noticed the odor of marijuana, and found residue in the center console. No significant amounts of marijuana were found. After the search was completed the Complainant and passenger were released with no charges. ALLEGATION #1 — Illegal Search Officer A had probable cause to stop the vehicle because of the tail light not operating properly. Based on Officer A's observations, the request for K -9 unit was appropriate. Search of the vehicle was legal based on the alert by K -9. Allegation 1: Illegal Search - Not sustained COMMENTS None. t aa: S�