Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-03 TranscriptionIowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:00:20] [MUSIC] Well, it is 4:00 P.M. On November 3rd, 2025, and I'm going to call the City of Iowa City's work session to order. Hello, everyone. Our first item is USG updates, and I don't see them here in present. So we're going to move on to item number 2. It's clarification of agenda items. [00:00:45] Thank you for putting down the schedule on the top of that. It looked nice. Thank you, staff. [00:00:56] Thank you, Kellie. [00:00:59] All right, we'll move on to item number 3, information packet discussions, October 23rd. [00:01:09] Um, I can't remember exactly which, one, um, the library Board of Trustees meeting was on. [00:01:19] Just 23rd. [00:01:19] That's this one. [00:01:20] Ye p. [00:01:20] Um, I guess, uh, maybe it just, um, because I just read through that, uh, the minutes for that meeting today. Um, I guess maybe at some point, I would just like some, uh, if you could get us some information about- because it seemed like the HVAC system, potential replacement in the future might be something that is cumbersome. So I guess I would just like some information about that. It doesn't have to be right now, um, but just in a future meeting or something. [00:02:00] Yeah, that's the one where the chemicals that they use for the condenser are probably not going to be available for much longer. [00:02:07] Ye p. [00:02:08] Page 1 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. I have the same thing at my home, so we've been talking. So eventually that's gonna be replaced, too. So I actually was reading that as well. I was like, thinking. [00:02:13] Yep, that sounds familiar. [00:02:15] Yeah. And the fact that to replace the large ones requires a crane and/or helicopter, it just made me think, like, I don't know. It just raised questions for me. So yeah. [00:02:30] Sure. It was- it is part of the fiscal year'27 budget process, so we've been discussing this project in terms of the capital budget for the city, and that's naturally when we would talk about the timing for replacement. So that would be sometime January, February ish. But if you want, we can either do it one on one or we could schedule it on a work session and have more in depth conversation. [00:02:56] Um, I'm okay with just doing it one on one at some point for now. Thank you. [00:03:05] All right. We'll move on to October 30th. [00:03:09] 1 just wanted to highlight IP6, which is the update on all of the ARPA programs and just fantastic work, um, you know, just worth a shout out for the collaborative process with my colleagues here on the council, the city staff, and members of the community to come up with those ideas and execute them, and a lot of them have been done. For anybody out in the public that wants to, um, take a look at that, I would highlight that that's a really interesting piece of what the city's been working on for the last four years, five years, something like that. So good stuff. [00:03:49] Okay. All right. We're gonna move on to item number 4 on our agenda, which is Burlington Street Bridge Update. All right. Come on down. [00:04:03] Good afternoon, Council. I'm Justin Harland. I'm a senior engineer here at Iowa City, and I would like to show you what we've been working on in terms of the Burlington Street Bridge here the last few months with our partners, the Iowa DOT and University of Iowa. We've hired HDR as our design consultant, and this year's Mike Kurek. He's a professional engineer with HDR, and we work closely with Mike, um, to develop these preferred alternatives, and eventually the preferred alternative. So without further ado, here's Mike. Page 2 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:04:37] Perfect. Yes. Thank you, council. That goes into presenter mode. Perfect. All right. Well, as Justin said, we are excited to be here just to provide an update. It's been about a year long planning study, so, um, we're here to show you what we've been up to this last year. So, uh, to go over the agenda for today, just to touch on the purpose and need of the project, talk about the alternatives, uh, that were considered and the ones that will be advanced, and then talk about some next steps. So, again, the purpose and need of the project, the Eastbound bridge is owned by the city. It's 100-years-old, and it's nearing its useful life cycle, so it needs to be replaced. And then this planning study is, um, main point and purpose is to figure out just how to do that. So the different elements of this planning study, um, even though the bridge is 100-years-old, um, really needs to be looked at in context of the surrounding area. So looking at replacement of both of the bridges, uh, for the intersection and geometry improvements, the non ADA compliant pedestrian ramp, taking a look at the pedestrian structures, the roadway geometry as well, and the two wing of Melrose and Burlington as if that's feasible or not. And then as long as we're in the area, um, looking at any type of impact that the bridge replacement could have on the existing dam or looking at what modifications might be possible to the dam, as long as we're in the area here. So then ultimately at the end of the planning study, we would advance a single preferred concept into design. And just to reiterate that the, uh, end of the planning study is really just a functional design. So all of the details will be further sought after, um, into the preliminary and final design. So just a functional concept at the end here. So how do we even go about this? Well, we establish what we call, uh, project guidelines and, um, further reduce that down into the needs and the wants of the project. We meet with many different stakeholder groups and, uh, heard from the public, all these different stakeholders and identified which needs and wants, um, were really geared for the project. And then to highlight here where that also aligns with the Council strategic area, um, I have noted, and I think I touch on these in detail maybe at the last presentation, so I'll just go over them at a high level, but stop me if you have any questions along the way. So for this project, we identified project needs, focusing on bikes and pedestrians, roadway and intersection improvements, focus on transit, emergency response, campus considerations, and surrounding area context. Access during construction, how does that affect surrounding properties and business owners? And then, lastly, the dam safety for the Burlington Street dam. Then there were a number of project wants in there as well. So these wants are important but would not necessarily filter out an alternative. If we could get that within the alternative, then great, but wouldn't be, um, one of those criteria that would automatically eliminate an alternative. And then lastly, the project constraints. Cost, basically every single project, have to make sure it's within the budget that we have, making sure it's constructible, looking at constructibility in detail to see if what we're proposing actually works, and then making sure that we're working with the environmental, utility and property owner impacts. So the stakeholder groups that we've worked with over this past year are summarized here, but we've met with these groups on a fairly regular basis. But our Technical Advisory Committee, which is this project's decision making committee, which is made up of, um, the city, Iowa DOT, the MPO, and the, uh, University of Iowa. So that is the decision making body that has advanced each one of these alternatives in step in a unified voice. So everyone on that committee, um, agreed to either eliminate or advance these alternatives. Then we have our stakeholder working group. So this is a group that we, um, picked that represents a good sample for those that rely on the bridge for critical functions. Then we have our stakeholder one on one meetings where we'll Page 3 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. actually sit down with the people directly impacted by the project, learn about project constraints. Operations, um, unique things that only they would know about to make sure that what we're proposing is actually feasible and constructible. Uh, then we engaged with the public. So both in a public forum for public meeting, electronic survey, um, project email, a couple of different ways that we interacted with the public, and then provided updates to everyone here, elected officials, um, and at the university, um, through their channels. And then we also referenced other planning documents. So making sure we're not looking at this in a silo, but really considering the context for the area, all the hard work that was done on the other planning documents and making sure we're looking at things in context for the area. So part of that public engagement was an electronic survey. We got just over 550 responses on the second survey and pretty good distribution for the demographics there, too. So I have noted at the bottom, just for context of how the responses came in, but asked you know if you were a student or resident or how you used the corridor. So those percentages are there, either motorist, pedestrian, transit rider, et cetera. And then the type of questions that were asked in these public surveys were function, how do you use the corridor, um, aesthetics, other key features, personal preferences, uh, preferences on construction phasing. And then in case our survey didn't capture, um, everything, we had an open write in in case the public wanted to communicate with our design team. Um, and we did read every single comment. So some of them are pretty funny. But got some good feedback there. So we have all the feedback. We have the project wants and needs. But how do we actually go about, um, screening and going through the alternatives here? So in a very high level, um, graphic here, um, basically a three step process that was repeated pretty frequently. So we worked with our advisory committee and, um, brought all feasible options to the table and then screened them against those project wants and needs. The alternatives that did not check the box on all the needs were eliminated. And then the ones that did meet those needs were discussed pros and cons with that advisory committee. Um, after we got input there, we would refine those alternatives and then take it out to all of the stakeholder groups, solicit, um, feedback, you know, does this even work for you guys? Um, is it even constructible if we were to do that? Then we later refined that, and then Brinston repeated and went through that process again until we came down just to a single preferred alternative. So I have I think shown this map a couple times, but we've broken this project just since it's such a large area into these four key areas so that we can take a deeper dive, maybe more detailed look at each one of these areas. And the first one that we'll take a look at is the Burlington Street Bridge. So just for reference, um, the location where that is. And for the bridge itself, we looked at everything from a signature bridge to two bridges to a separate bridge just for multimodal, um, and a bridge that was offset even from the current alignment. Um, further to the north just for temporary construction means, and ultimately landed on a traditional beam bridge, um, as the alternative that would be advanced. And this was done so because it's the most cost economical option, contextual for the area. Uh, probably more importantly, that this bridge type is a bridge type that allows staging for pedestrians, vehicles, and utilities. So lots of different, um, considerations for that staging. Um, it improves bike and pedestrian comfort and connectivity. So getting everyone kind of on the same plane there. And then it also enhances that river recovery, so the dam safety element to that, and then it maintains the viewscape. So the representative image that I'm about to show you, I think if you just cut that bridge in half and looked east this is just a section view of what that would look like. Um, lots of things on the table still to decide. But what this image shows in general is just that the modes of travel are separated. So we have separate Page 4 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. mode of travel for pedestrians, for bicyclists, and for vehicles, and the amount of spans, the aesthetics, all of that stuff will be further determined in preliminary design, um, lane width, stuff like that. So lots of things to be decided moving forward. Um, but here's just the general section of what that would look like. So now to jump over to the Burlington Street dam, which is just south of the bridge. Um, with this area, we looked at all alternatives. [00:14:52] 1 have one question before you jump to there. So what do you think the future- how long do you think these lanes would be needed in our community because we're a growing community? [00:15:05] Yeah, we did traffic forecasting, um, out quite a bit. [NOISE] I don't remember the exact year off the top of my head, but we did project it quite a ways out and looked at that demand. So the actual lane configurations, once we get, um, more and more information could change. But right now our models are saying that these are the link configurations that would work for I can't remember. It was 50 plus years or so. [00:15:34] O kay. [00:15:34] So we projected a certain percent growth for the area, and then knowing that there's adjacent projects, taking into account some of that growth, as well. But don't quote me on the 50 years. I can get back to you with how many years we projected out. [00:15:48] And then I know that, um, I'm assuming that the DOT, have they made a decision or have we approached them as to who's going to actually own the bridge? [00:15:58] Um, I don't know that the formal agreement is there, but there have been talks with the DOT about ownership. Yeah. [00:16:06] Yep. And agreements, I guess, with all of the different advisory committee members, there's, you know, bridge elements, pedestrian bridge elements, the ramp, the roadways, and, um, those talks are- I know, ongoing, but- [00:16:21] Sure. [00:16:21] Page 5 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Initially have- have been had. [00:16:24] Um, just- I- I just am ignorant of the concept of- of how, uh, the differences between the city owning the bridge and the state owning the bridge. Would that- if we arrived at the state owning the bridge, would that, um, put, uh, hurdles in front of us to things as simple as we want these many lanes or we want the bridge to look like this, or the state could come in and say, it's actually going to be painted yellow and this many lanes? Like, I don't know. [00:16:54] Um, I would say no. It's- it's a collaborative effort, and, um, they're a partner in this process as well. So they're in that advisory committee as we talk about these alternatives. So I know aesthetics have been talked about, and in our, um, aesthetics meeting, they actually stated that everything's on the table, still so. Um, I don't think anything would be ruled out. [00:17:20] And the state, uh, does own Burlington Street all the way back through the downtown. So it's a little unusual that there's a city ownership and state ownership of the bridge. But if you look at the larger corridor, it is state owned. [00:17:32] O kay. [00:17:33] 1 was going to ask as we- as you walk us through this, can we- can you remind us which each segment belongs to whom? Like, which bridges, which pedestrian watchways, which dams, Burlington, all of it. Because I know some of that is all in flux, and it would be helpful to know [OVERLAPPING] how you guys are making those decisions. [00:17:49] Yes. So currently, the Eastbound bridge is the city's, the Westbound bridge is the DOTS. The pedestrian structure and ramp are actually, uh, a three way agreement between the city, university, and the DOT, uh, between ownership and maintenance. There's certain quality in there- [00:18:07] Elevated portion all the way that connects up to the dorms and the wall building, that's a shared structure. [00:18:13] Correct. Correct. Yep. Uh, the dam is owned by the university, and then the roadway, um, from the intersection South and East would be DOTS, and then to the West is city owned. Page 6 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:18:29] And Byington is even though heavily used by the university, it is a city road. [00:18:33] It is a city road. Yep. [00:18:34] And then the last kind of persnickety thing, I guess I'm curious about is the dam, it's owned by the university, but needed by [OVERLAPPING] the NG Company. Like, who's the decision maker and what happens with that dam? [00:18:47] University. [00:18:48] University, not NG. [00:18:49] And it's just maintained, uh, utilities, and then the plants are maintained by NG. [00:18:56] Thanks. [00:19:02] Cool. Any other questions on the bridge? Okay. Awesome. So then we'll jump to the Burlington Street dam. And then these alternatives, we looked at everything from ranging to the do nothing option to the complete removal option and everywhere in between and are advancing a modification option for safety. And then if it's cost feasible, would add a passage and potential recreation element to that. So since that do nothing option did not check the need of the project, uh, that was eliminated. So really the modification for safety was the most cost economical, um, out of the list. And then obviously this, uh, improves the dam's safety component. Uh, but when we talked about constraints, this option does not negatively impact the city water supply. Uh, it maintains that pool elevation, so it doesn't impact the rowing team. Any of the power plant intakes, uh, doesn't negatively impact the floodplain and preserves that potentially eligible historic district. And this option, uh, I'll show you here in a second. But this option allows access to the river's edge, uh, by proposing a trail on the back side of the hydraulic building. And that would also increase the, uh, operations and function of that hydraulics building, as well. Not sure if you've walked or taken a bike around there, but it's a little tight, especially in the winter, uh, when the snow storage occupies a lot of that sidewalk. [00:20:41] Page 7 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Regarding -this is kind of connected to this slide, but also the stakeholder guide. Um, is DNR and people who like to fish, have- has that group been engaged? Kind of noticing. There's a lot of people in Iowa city that like to fish, so. [00:20:54] Yes. We did engage the public for fishing element to that. Fishing will be maintained with this one. Actually, access to the river's edge here probably gives you a better fishing opportunities. Uh, but we have worked with the DNR, both their, uh, fisheries, actually to design this, um, fish and boater passage, as well, making sure that it meets those requirements and making sure that what we're proposing is permitable and feasible, so. [00:21:23] Thank you. [00:21:24] Yep. So here is a representative image of what a dam surfing option might look like. Um, what we're showing here is kind of a stairstep option. What that does is it removes that lethality component to the current roller dam. Right now, that roller dam has a current that if you go over it, kind of pulls you under and keeps you under the water. And what this does is, um, basically evens that velocity across there. So if you go over it, um, it would be non -lethal. And then the fish and boater by- bypass is basically just, uh, a rock channel that's had a gradual grade. Uh, and then the potential recreation element that you'd add to it is potentially, uh, a surf feature or a multi user element, like tubing, something like that. [00:22:18] Um, uh, I- I just have to ask, especially since we have applied to become a bird friendly city, um, the- the pelican migration comes through twice a year, and they really like to hang out on this river, and they really like to coalesce around the dam because it, like, shoots the fish into- you know, like, so lots of birders gather around there. Uh, I- I guess I just- I'm bringing this up because, uh, I'm- I'm just curious if this- uh, you- you said that these things like fish bypass, I think, is what you were using to where it's not going to impede that, uh, wildlife flow? [00:23:01] Yep. [00:23:02] Okay. [00:23:04] Yeah. What - what that bypass does, it just links the aquatic ecosystem. So fish downstream will be able to migrate upstream. And then there's, like, a- a boat launch upstream, so you can take a small craft down and through it and actually have it be traversable. Page 8 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:23:22] That's fascinating. Thank you. [00:23:23] Yep. And then I mentioned earlier, uh, those two alternatives that were being advanced, uh, modification for safety or passage and recreation to it. Um, but I just wanted to touch on this continuing authorities program that our team identified as a potential funding source for the dam modification. Uh, it's a program run by the Army Corps of Engineers, and they have a cost limit per project of up to $15 million that could go to it, and it'd be a 65/35 split. So, um, if this does move forward, and we do, uh, meet the merits for that continuing authorities program, then this would be a more cost feasible option to actually add it. And then the point of this program is to link that aquatic ecosystem. So the primary, uh, purpose for the dam modification would be that fish passage. [00:24:24] So this- this- this potential opportunity applies to any of the dam mitigation options include- and then I was actually kind of curious to hear more about why is- is removal just way too expensive or is too disruptive to the water s- I mean, talk more about why dam removal is so much more expensive than all these really cool, like, surfing modifications. [00:24:48] Yeah, yeah. So the- the recreation element would be outside what the, uh, Army Corps program would allow. Uh, that would just be an added cost. Uh, but the passage and modification would be something that would be covered under the program. And the full dam removal, uh, is basically too impactful to the area surrounding. So the city water supply operates on alluvial wells, which you basically need to maintain a certain pool elevation above the dam for these things to operate. And, um, any change to that affects how much water can be drawn, uh, through the system. And these alluvial wells are basically just like giant filters. I think they're 100 and something feet into the ground, but it filters the river water. Uh, we live in a farming community, so filters a lot of the, um, nitrates and stuff like that out of the water system and then can be pumped from there. So, uh, a change in that water elevation affects how much water you can actually pull from that system. Um, and then the power plant, the University Power Plant and water plant have intakes that operate at the current pool elevation. So, um, you'd really have to get into the building and do very costly modifications to even have that, uh, be able to draw at a lower pool elevation. And then you'd have, um, other potential impacts like the floodplains, as well. So, uh, on top of cost, it's- it's really the function of how everything else would have to change to accommodate the new pool and river elevations. [00:26:37] Mike, not to get too far into the week on the continuing authorization program, is that- is that the continuing authorities program? Thank you. [00:26:45] CAP for short. Page 9 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:26:46] Yes. Is that- so I understand the primary point needs to be restoring the aquatic ecosystem. The things that you're describing to us are sort of infrastructural, right? As far as the bridge project and how the dam, you know, is part of that. Do- do we know would a program like this help with water quality? Is that part of the conversation now or at some point, does that come into it? [00:27:11] So water quality would not be addressed by this program. This Section 206, um, from that statute is just looking at aquatic ecosystems. So this is kind of a very targeted grant of something, sorry, not a grant, but a program that we could do to that dam. So, um, not water quality, but just with that aquatic ecosystem connectivity. [00:27:39] Okay. Meaning, like, where they can- where the wildlife and plants can be in the river? [00:27:44] Yeah. And basically what this is saying is that the current roller dam is impassable upstream or downstream, however you go. And the modification here would just have that ability to connect both upstream and downstream. So you get the benefit of having a safer dam, um, with anything that would go over- be near it, and then you have that advantage of having that ecosystem connected. [00:28:09] Thank you. [00:28:10] So, yeah. But we have met with the Army Corp, and it- it seems like a viable program, but it will have to go under a feasibility review by the Corp first, so [00:28:24] Can you mention, uh, I think with that last sentence in red, uh, means because if- if successful, if the Army Corps picks this up, my understanding is it becomes really two separate projects at that time. Is that accurate? [00:28:37] Correct. Yeah. We would break it apart. Uh, when we looked at constructability, I think there's a nice phase line where we could have some independent utility between the two projects, even if they have their own timelines without it being too impactful. And then, again, that primary point of that Army Corp program would be focusing on that passage component. [00:28:58] And that project would be managed by the Army Corps, if successful? Page 10 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:29:04] Correct. Yeah. [00:29:04] That's ongoing by them? [00:29:07] Um, that is not ongoing. We haven't moved forward with anything yet. Uh, we've just had some initial discussions if this program would work for the modifications that we're seeking. So it seemed like there was enough, uh, there to make it worth pursuing. [00:29:28] Regarding the sort of assuming the dam stays in place, uh, is anything about the bridge, uh, reduce the infrastructure within the- is the infrastructure within the dam able to be re- displaced into the new bridge? Is that a consideration, or are we just sort of saying, no, the bridge- the dam is gonna be here forever? [00:29:47] The- oh, you're saying, like, make the dame part of the bridge? [OVERLAPPING]. [00:29:50] Does the thing. It holds water back. I understand it's need for that, but it also has lots of infrastructure inside. Is any part of the bridge project displace that infrastructure? [00:30:01] It's can. That would be, uh, a university item that we're working with them just to figure out. So right now that dam is like, uh, a main conduit for a lot of their steam and co- condensation piping. So it's a very costly relocation if they were to do it, but the bridge would- would allow an option if they wanted to take the utilities out of the dam and put it on the bridge. [00:30:24] Yeah. Thanks. [00:30:26] So yeah. Okay. Uh, then jumping to the intersection of Riverside and Burlington. This is the second highest traffic volume intersection in all of Johnson County. So, uh, we thought we'd take a very close look here and how this functions. So all the alternatives on the table, we looked at just making everything as an at grade crossing. Uh, we looked at grades separated, both above grade and below grade for all the quadrants of that intersection. Um, and ultimately landed on a grade separated crossing that was, uh, grade separated under when crossing Burlington and, uh, also providing an at grade crossing, so you're not stuck with one or the other. So you'd have some redundancy there. But this, uh, Page 11 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. option increased the bicycle and pedestrian comfort and safety, uh, removing those conflict points between pedestrian bikes and vehicles, uh, improved transit reliability, increases that ability for river recovery. Again, just getting an opportunity for access to the river's edge. Uh, allowing more space for lanes, so improved capacity through this intersection, and, uh, it's least impactful to the hydraulic building and picnic area. So a representative image for that, uh, is just the both modes that you'd have there to either go at grade or below grade, uh, with a decision point that you could go either or, and you're not forced to go one or the other. [00:32:13] And then to address that non-88 compli- spiral ramp, we've evaluated a lot of different ramp options to kind of go up and over Riverside. These ramps don't really impact the functionality of the concept that's being advanced, but all of these, I guess, would still be on the table. So something as simple as just a straight ramp to a switchback to this elongated spiral, which is 88 compliant. It's just like, uh, a much flatter, longer spiral ramp, and then an offset spiral. So taking aesthetics and architecture up a notch from that elongated spiral. So all things to be further vetted out during preliminary design. [00:32:58] Just so I understand the scale of these diagrams, is the begin- like the upper left diagram where it looks like you might start a ramp, is that all the way back, like at the rec center where you would start to ascend? Or how far? [00:33:10] It's, um, for reference, it's basically where the pedestrian bridge is, right now if I were to go all the way back to- there we go. It's basically where it starts in the top right of that image by the dormitory and basically lands in a similar spot. I think the whole intersection shifted north a little bit, but basically lands in the same spot. [00:33:38] It's- got it. Okay. [00:33:40] Oh, yeah, I slipped actually was like interesting [OVERLAPPING]. [00:33:43] So now I understand. [00:33:44] Yeah. Right. Okay. And then just to talk about this West Campus area- [00:33:58] Page 12 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. I'm sorry. Could you go back like two slides? I just want to- yeah, just trying to get my perspective on that. So that's the top right hand corner of the bottom picture. That's the parking lot by the English Building and Library. [00:34:10] I'm sorry. This is just a representative image, so not even with the area. So it's just- just an example showing you of what the underpass with an at grade crossing would look like. [00:34:22] Got you. That makes way more sense. [00:34:23] Okay. No worries. [00:34:24] Thank you. [00:34:27] All right. And then the West Campus area, uh, I think we just coined that term very early on in the project, and it stuck. But it's basically everything to the west of the Riverside Burlington intersection. And this area, uh, we looked at many, many different alternatives here, uh, but really focused and prioritized on, uh, EMS and traffic flow. So we looked at everything from, um, keeping the intersection at Byington and Grand and signalizing it, adding stop control, looked at many different grade separated options, roundabouts, all of that. And then with this being a heavy trafficked area for city transit and for campus, looked at all the different operational combinations with the red route, blue route, yellow route. So, uh, what we found and what we advanced was a pedestrian plaza with a centralized bus hub location on either the east or the west side. And that, again, prioritized the emergency service response and traffic flow. And by eliminating that intersection, we're increasing safety, removing a lot of those, um, vehicle pedestrian conflict points that are there now, uh, and promotes that more intuitive way finding. So we got a lot of comments, uh, that just wayfinding, navigating through this area is very confusing. Uh, but this will help with that. And then creating that sense of place, uh, by dedicated transit hub and just separating those modes of traffic again. There's, uh, a lot of different modes in the area. So just a top down image. North is to the top of the page, uh, of just what that might look like. So really eliminating that intersection at Grand and Byington and getting two way traffic on Byington Melrose. So our traffic model is showed it'd be at least, uh, a three lane, uh, section through there, and then we'd be able to pull those bus stops off of the main road, so more dedicated space to vehicles or emergency service vehicles going through there as, uh, students and pedestrians are loading and unloading from buses. [00:36:51] Page 13 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. So Grand Avenue would be only for buses and emergency and actual, like, otherwise, tra- regular traffic would be diverted through Byington [OVERLAPPING]? And will Byington, if I'm remembering right, based on our own rezoning and whatnot and our recent flip, Byington is going to be widened? [00:37:11] Byington will be widened. It'll be at least a three lane section. Uh, might be four, but as of right now, our- our traffic models are showing three. [00:37:20] Okay, thank you. [00:37:20] Yeah. So the- from, I guess, I'll just say what's south of the current traffic turn circle all the way to Melrose. There's all kinds of, like, parking- university parking ramp connections and also a drive through the hospital. I mean, I know the University's involved in these conversations. Does thatjust get cut off? And do they now access parking garages from Melrose as opposed to there, or how does? [00:37:46] So we will have- um, it'll be right now two lanes in the south to westbound direction. Um, what we're proposing is just a dedicated turn lane to get into the Level 1 trauma center and all of these parking ramps. So, uh, extra storage for those turning and waiting vehicles to get into those parking lots. And then we are working with the university. We know the tower project is going on, and that Hawkeye Wave Drive or Hawkeye Wave Way, uh, might be one way or two ways. So kinda working with them and while that roadway's in flux. [00:38:24] And thi- I- I- I like the idea of this. My understanding of this large red area here is that that is far more pedestrian focused, more like a bus terminal hub, pedestrian thing. That sounds great. Is that a university project or a city project at this point? [00:38:40] Right now, um, we're just kind of overall planning what functions best for this space, uh, but those agreements are being had between the city and the university about split, then what project belongs, um, to what entity? [00:38:58] 1 think it's- it's probably likely it would be a university. We- we would turn it over to the university, but, um, just as with the- with the two bridges and the pedestrian bridge and all the other components, there's- there's a lot to work out. But as- as envisioned right now, I think we would see this becoming more of a university managed space. [00:39:18] Page 14 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Okay. [00:39:25] Okay. All right. [00:39:28] 1 have one thing to say about that. Um, so it makes sense that, um, the- the direction of the road would be going towards from Burlington, essentially, over the Melrose, because that's where, um, the general public would be going. And the other buildings on Grand Avenue is really related to dorms and university, um, essentially, the ER's over there. I guess I'm curious if, and this is more of a traffic safety question, um, if most folks knew that they needed to go, you know, kind of westbound towards Melrose, is it critical to have Grand Avenue cut off? Because there are still some, like the ER would be quicker that way. [00:40:21] Yes. Yeah. Very good question. Um, we did run a lot of simulated traffic models, and, uh, what occurs basically right now on Grand, it's just very unpredictable with students coming across the roadway, with campus pulling in and out with one way signage that's only meant for buses and not vehicles and vehicles, um, getting trapped there. This is just a more focused directional flow that you can actually go the speed limit through here and not have to slow down through this Grand Avenue area. Uh, but we did the timings, and it's essentially the same. So even though we're doing a- a slight detour around Grand, having that dedicated space that you're able to actually drive as if it were a normal road instead of kind of through this mixed use area, um, just allows a more direct path. [00:41:18] Okay. Alright, thanks. [00:41:20] Yeah. Alright. So then just to touch on the alternatives that were advanced, so just to summarize, kind of a handful of the alternatives that were considered, and then the ones that did move forward, and then just to talk about the next step. So, uh, really towards the end of the year here, we'll be meeting with you one more time with actual rendering. So actually being able to visualize what these different elements look like within the space, uh, putting all these different pieces of the puzzle together. And, uh, also part of that planning study, we did submit for our environmental clearance already, so we're anticipating that that would be in the spring of 26' is when we would receive that. And then, really, it's to the next phase. So into preliminary and final design, and right now, we're targeting a construction start date of spring of 2029. Um, but we're working with Iowa DOT. They have a bridge project on Highway 6, and we don't want both bridges out or in a reduced capacity at the same time. So we will work with the DOT on the actual construction start date. So a small disclaimer there. Um, but with that, I'll hand it back over to Justin. And if you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer. [00:42:37] Page 15 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Uh, I was just curious if, uh, technically speaking, what, uh, makes a bridge go from just being a- a traditional beam bridge to a signature bridge, like a signature bridge, from what I can tell, is kind of just, like, a cool bridge, you know? [00:42:59] That's a good way to think about it. [00:43:00] So, I mean, if you add enough, like, public art things to a traditional beam bridge, that could be a signature bridge. Am I thinking about that correctly [OVERLAPPING]? [00:43:10] It's really, uh, subjective, I guess, what you're- what you're calling signature. Um, the way we're referencing signature is just, like, a free span bridge. So no piers in the river at all. And that style bridge, uh, doesn't allow for construction phasing. So that was ruled out early in the process. The current bridge itself, um, with both bridges, how they're angled takes up a pretty wide footprint, and we'd basically have to build the bridge off alignment, but it'd be very difficult to do that all at once. Uh, the only way that we could have done that was do a complete closure of the bridge. [00:43:46] Okay. So yeah. And so- [00:43:48] But there's a lot of things you could do aesthetically to make it more enhanced than a typical bridge. Uh, that terminology is also a little misleading. It's really just a beam bridge. There's a lot of things that you could do aesthetically from, uh, what you can do with the piers, to the barriers, to the lighting, to, uh, really just the user experience on the bridge, too, as you're going through there, so. [00:44:12] Okay. Um, and has there been any, I mean, I don't know if we're nearly entering this phase at all, but just, like, thought about, uh, consulting with, um, the Public Art Committee, uh, in terms of how to beautify or ideas, things like that, getting going. [00:44:35] That, uh, we have not had those conversations yet. Um, really just this first phase was looking at base function. [00:44:42] Yeah. [00:44:43] Page 16 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. And I think that would be a great thing to consult with once we get into design and really figure out those details, how we want the deck to look, um, that user experience as you're going through there as well. [00:44:55] And you've got two members of your Public Art, uh, uh, Advisory Commission in the audience, and then Rachel, uh, who's the staff liaison is also here, and I know they've had those conversations informally just not a formal engagement with the commission. [00:45:08] Perfect. Kind of add on to that a little bit. It'd be interesting at your next presentation to show examples of standard beam bridges that people have done some maybe unique things with. I- I think this community would appreciate something that has a little bit of identity and character, but doing it understandably in an economical way, so. [00:45:26] Definitely. Someone told me, um, they wanted, like, a giant Harki like one foot on either side of the bridge, a few hundred feet tall [LAUGHTER]. [00:45:36] Colossus of roads. [00:45:37] Can be done. [00:45:38] Yeah. Uh, so I don't know. [00:45:40] Do we drive under Harki light? [00:45:42] Yeah. [00:45:42] Okay. [00:45:43] Like, uh, that one statue in Greece. [00:45:46] Right. Page 17 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:45:46] Yeah. [00:45:47] 1 don't know. Anyway. Yeah. [00:45:48] That would make it a unique bridge, for sure [LAUGHTER]. [00:45:51] 1 will say cool. [00:45:52] One quick. The- the- the one sort of, I guess, engineering question is frequently people will ask me, Oh, great. We're getting a new bridge. When I'm parked on it, it won't rattle anymore. And I said, I don't know that that's true. I think that it's just not normal that you stop on a bridge, but all bridges kind of shake a little bit. Is that- am I telling the truth here? [00:46:13] Yeah. Correct. Um, there will be vibrations on all bridges. All bridges, um, would have to deflect. If they're too stiff, it would fail, essentially. So it's meant to deflect. It's part of the design criteria of how much it deflects, but it's meant to [OVERLAPPING]. [00:46:27] This one will- if done perfectly still have a little movement. Okay. [OVERLAPPING]. [00:46:33] Correct. [00:46:33] Like, I hate sitting on bridges [OVERLAPPING]. [00:46:34] People don't like that and they tell us about it [OVERLAPPING]. [00:46:36] And I know it's a worst thing for them not to have some movement. Yeah. [00:46:41] Let's build a tunnel instead. Page 18 Iowa City City Council Work Session of November 3, 202S (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:46:43 ] Alright. Hearing no more questions. Thank you. [00:46:49] Perfect. [00:46:49] Great. Thank you. [00:46:52] Alright. Any other discussion by counsel on this item? Hearing none, we'll move on to Item Number 5. Counsel updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees. [00:47:11] 1 got to remind myself, what have I done? [00:47:14] Hearing none, we're adjourned from our work session, and we'll be back at 6:00 PM for our formal meeting. [MUSIC] Page 19