Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-09-07 Resolution
Item Number: 6.b. r CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org September 7, 2021 Motion granting a 90 -day extension to the Community Police Review Board for the filing of the Public Report with the City Council on Complaint #20-02, #20-05, #20-06, #20-07, and #20-08. ATTACHMENTS: Description Letter for Extension Request Community POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 August 31, 2021 Mayor Bruce Teague 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At the August 30, 2021 meeting, the Community Police Review Board voted in open session to request an expansion of additional investigation by the Police Chief regarding Complaints #20- 02, 20-05, 20-06, 20-07, and 20-08, pursuant to section 8-8-7(6)(1)(d) of the enabling ordinance. The Board also voted in open session to request an extension to the Board's deadline to file its Public Report for said Complaints. Paragraph 8-8-7(B)(8) of the enabling local ordinance provides that the City Council may grant a request for an extension upon a showing of good cause. The Board's good cause in support of this request is that the Police Chief's required additional investigation will take an unknown amount of time. The Board's Public Report is presently due September 28, 2021. The requested extension is for 90 -days with the report to be due on December 27, 2021. Sincerely, Orville Townsend Sr. — Vice Chair Community Police Review Board cc: City Attorney Item Number: 6.c. , CITY OF IOWA CITY ,!47 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution Amending FY2022 Inter -fund Transfers. Prepared By: Reviewed By: Fiscal Impact: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Noted on attached schedule Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: The Iowa Department of Management has administrative rules regarding the handling of inter -fund transfers. All inter -fund transfers are required to be adopted by resolution by the City Council. Background /Analysis: In April 2019, the Iowa Administrative Code incorporated regulations surrounding the management of inter -fund transfers. In addition to being adopted as part of the budget, which is subject to a public hearing, inter -fund transfers are required to be approved by the City Council by resolution. Each transfer must include the fund sending the transfer, the fund receiving the transfer, the amount of the transfer, and the reason for the transfer. These rules took effect in May 2019. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Prepared by: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240, (319)356-5063 Resolution No. 21-236 Resolution Adopting FY2022 Inter -fund Transfers Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that the City of Iowa City, in Johnson County, Iowa, approves the following transfer of monies between funds in accordance with the Administrative Code of the State of Iowa. The City Finance Director is hereby authorized to initiate and record the listed inter -fund transfers up to the amounts set out below. Transfer Out Fund Transfer In Fund Reason Original Amount General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund CDBG Fund Road Use Tax Fund Road Use Tax Fund Road Use Tax Fund Road Use Tax Fund Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Emergency Levy Fund Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing Parking Fund Parking Fund Parking Capital Reserve Transit Fund Wastewater Fund Wastewater Fund Wastewater Capital Reserve Water Fund Water Fund Water Capital Reserve Landfill Fund Landfill Fund Airport Capital Reserve Storm Water Fund Storm Water Capital Reserve Housing Authority Fund Passed and approved this Attest. Cable TV Equipment Reserve Facility Reserve Wastewater Fund Water Fund Refuse Collection Fund Storm Water Fund Capital Projects Airport Fund MPOJC Fund Affordable Housing Fund Library Replacement Reserve Debt Service Fund Transit Fund TIF Fund Landfill Fund Capital Projects Capital Projects Landfill Fund General Fund MPOJC Fund General Fund Road Use Tax Fund Capital Projects General Fund Capital Projects Debt Service Landfill Fund Parking Capital Reserve Capital Projects Transit Bus Reserve Wastewater Debt Reserve Wastewater Capital Reserve Wastewater Capital Projects Water Debt Reserve Water Capital Reserve Water Capital Projects Landfill Reserves Capital Projects Capital Projects Storm Water Capital Reserve Storm Water Capital Projects General Fund Equipment Reserve Reserve Transfer Low Income Discount Donations Low Income Discount Donations Low Income Discount Donations Low Income Discount Donations CIP funding CIP funding Operating funding Operating Funding Equipment Reserve Aniston Village Loan Pmt Transit Levy Transfer Hilton Garden Inn Rebate Transfer Loan Repayment CIP funding CIP funding Loan Repayment Forestry Cost Share Cost share Employee benefits Employee benefits CIP funding Loan Repayment TIF pre -certification expenditures Debt payments Loan Repayment Reserve Transfer CIP funding Reserve Transfer Debt payments Reserve Transfer CIP funding Debt payments Reserve Transfer CIP funding Closure/Replacement funding CIP funding CIP funding Reserve Transfer CIP funding PILOT/NDS Director cost share 7th day of SeptPm 2021 t May $10,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $2,300.00 $2,000.00 $6,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,358,470.00 $100,000.00 $71,789.00 $1,000,000.00 $62,422.00 $20,052.00 $4,142,112.00 $154,000.00 $111,842.00 $88,000.00 $2,797,000.00 $74,561.00 $90,795.00 $340,582.00 $12,519,760.00 $631,319.00 $100,000.00 $42,540.00 $18,191.00 $1,792,538.00 $277,535.00 $890,000.00 $890,000.00 $885,433.00 $1,178,495.00 $2,500,000.00 $2,358,000.00 $1,879,237.00 $1,300,000.00 $890,000.00 $897,471.00 $685,000.00 $32,500.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,490,000.00 $51,836.00 ''''ULSAL51.---- Appro fed by 4.,... --.1 Ci Attorney's Office — 8/26/2021 Resolution No. 21-236 Page 2 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Bergus Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Bergus x Mims x Salih X Taylor Teague X Thomas X Weiner the Item Number: 6.d. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution amending the budgeted positions in the Development Services Division of the Neighborhood and Development Services Department by deleting one full-time Development Regulations Specialist position and adding one full-time Associate Planner -Urban Planning position and amending the AFSCME pay plan by deleting the position Development Regulations Specialist from grade 13. Prepared By: Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director Karen Jennings, Human Resources Administrator Fiscal Impact: Maximum increase in expenditures of approximately $6,220 per year to the General Fund. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: The recent retirement of the Development Regulations Specialist has provided an opportunity for review of Division functions and needs. Staff feels that the needs of the Department can be better served by converting the position to an Associate Planner -Urban Planning in anticipation of future new Form Based Code building permit oversight and to better integrate commercial site plan reviews and design reviews with other current planning activities. The current position's responsibilities can be maintained due to improved efficiencies in the permitting process. Some duplicative construction site runoff permitting and inspections have already begun to be transitioned over to new Public Works storm water staff. Background /Analysis: This position is currently managed by the Senior Building Inspector, which is a hold -over from the pre -merger organizational structure of the Division, and conducts specialized reviews of land development applications for compliance with environmental, zoning, site plan, grading, floodplain, and other related municipal ordinances. The position is also responsible for general zoning code interpretation and enforcement, stormwater pollution prevention, and flood plain management including National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System certification. Since the current description of work for the Development Regulations Specialist is essentially a sub -set of current planning work and requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree with a preference for two years land use planning experience or a Master's degree it is likely that the qualified candidate pool to rehire will be largely entry-level planners. Equalizing the position with other planners on staff in the Division and re -assigning supervisory responsibility to the Senior Planner would allow for the Division to capitalize on other skills and competencies the new hire will likely offer. For example, with the implementation of the South District Form Based Code, additional reviews will need to occur with the issuance of building permits for compliance with zoning code requirements. Without this change, it is expected that Urban Planning staff will need to be added to the permit review process. In addition, the change creates an opportunity for earlier and closer collaboration on site plan and design review between Division staff and will allow a more seamless review process, clearer responsibility, with shorter review periods, less confusion, and one clear point of contact. Finally, this change would help forestall staff turn -over as the new hire for this position gains experience by allowing for a variety of current planning assignments amongst all Urban Planning staff. The Associate Planner -Urban Planner position carries no specialization with it and all planners are expected to complete assigned tasks and respond to the public as appropriate to adjust to changing priorities and projects. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Prepared by: Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator, 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Resolution Number. 21-237 Resolution amending the budgeted positions in the Development Services Division of the Neighborhood and Development Services Department by deleting one full-time Development Regulations Specialist position and adding one full-time Associate Planner -Urban Planning position and amending the AFSCME pay plan by deleting the position Development Regulations Specialist from grade 13. Whereas, Resolution No. 21-73, adopted by the City Council on March 16, 2021 authorized budgeted positions in the Neighborhood and Development Services Department for Fiscal Year 2022; and Whereas, Resolution No. 21-111, adopted by the City Council on May 4, 2021, established a classification and compensation plan for AFSCME employees; and Whereas, it was determined that the needs of the Division would be better served by an Associate Planner position that can provide a variety of planning support. Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that: The budgeted positions in the Development Services Division of the Neighborhood and Development Services Department be amended by: 1. Deleting one full-time Development Regulations Specialist position. 2. Adding one full-time Associate Planner - Urban Planning position. The AFSCME pay plan be amended by deleting the position Development Regulations Specialist from grade 13. Passed and approved this 7th day of September Attest: It was moved by Salih adopted, and upon roll call there were: and seconded by , 20 21 • Approvedby? City Attefrney's Office - 8/31/2021 Bergus the Resolution be Ayes: Nays: Absent: Bergus x Mims X Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Weiner Item Number: 6.e. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution accepting payment of $300.00 civil penalty and waiver of right to hearing from Hawkeye Smoke & Liquor. Prepared By: Kathleen Thornton Reviewed By: Eric Goers, City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: NA Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: This resolution accepts a waiver of a hearing and a payment of a $300 civil penalty. The civil penalty is required by Iowa Code section 453A.22(2) due to first instance of an employee selling or providing tobacco to a minor within a 2 -year period. Background /Analysis: ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Prepared by: Eric Goers, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52244, 319-356-5030 Resolution number: 21-238 Resolution accepting payment of $300.00 civil penalty and waiver of right to hearing from Hawkeye Smoke & Liquor Whereas, on June 26, 2021, an employee of Hawkeye Smoke & Liquor, 108 East College Street, Iowa City, violated Iowa Code §453A.2(1) by selling or providing tobacco, tobacco products or cigarettes to a minor and this was the first such violation by one of its employees in a two-year period; and Whereas, at the time of the violation, Hawkeye Smoke & Liquor was operating under a retail cigarette permit issued by the City of Iowa City; and Whereas, pursuant to Iowa Code §453A.22(2), an establishment which holds a retail cigarette permit is subject to a civil penalty of $300.00 as a result of its employee violating Iowa Code §453A.2(1) for a first violation within a two-year period; and Whereas, Hawkeye Smoke & Liquor has waived its right to a hearing required by Iowa Code §453A.22(2) and accepted responsibility for its employee's first violation of Iowa Code §453A.2(1), by paying a $300.00 civil penalty to the City Clerk of the City of Iowa City. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that the City Council should accept the waiver of right to hearing and payment of $300.00 civil penalty on behalf of Hawkeye Smoke & Liquor. Be it further resolved, that the City Clerk will forward this Resolution to the City Attorney's Office, which will then provide a copy of the same to the retail cigarette permit holder via regular mail sent to the permit holder's place of business as it appears on the application for a retail cigarette permit. Passed and approved this 7thday of Sept. , 2021. r � Attest: Approved by City Attorney' Office — 8/31/2021 Resolution No. 21-23R, Page 2 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Bergus Mims x Salih X Taylor Teague x Thomas x Weiner Item Number: 6.f. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest an Agreement by and between the City of Iowa City and Snyder & Associates, Inc., of Iowa City, Iowa to provide engineering services for the 2022 Park Renovations Project. Prepared By: Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Juli Seydell Johnson, Parks and Recreation Director Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: $86,500 available in the Chadek Green Park Playground and Shelter account #R4350, the Whispering Meadows Park Ecological Restoration & Park Improvements account #R4357, and the Court Hill Park Shelter & Playground Replacement account #R4368 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: Yes Attachments: Location Map Resolution Agreement Executive Summary: This agenda item authorizes an agreement to provide consultant services for the 2022 Park Renovations Project. Background /Analysis: The scope of work consists of three separate and distinct park sites that will be designed, bid and constructed as one project. The description for each park site is as follows: Chadek Green Park includes a new combination shelter, restroom and storage premanufactured building that supports community gardens with an outdoor sink, storage for community gardening tools and storage for mulch. A small handicap accessible parking lot and/or a playground may be considered if there is a strong interest by neighbors and if feasible within the project budget once the top priorities are established. Whispering Meadows Park includes a "pocket park" playground, new shelter with an accessible path to the street and a water service. Court Hill Park includes a new playground, up to two replacement shelters and new accessible paths between park features. These projects were prioritized by the 2017 Park Master Plan. Neighborhood meetings will be held this fall to gather input on park design and features. ATTACHMENTS: Description Location Map Resolution Agreement Prepared by: Ben Clark, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St.. Iowa City, IA 52240: (319) 356-5436 Resolution No. 21-239 Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest an Agreement by and between the City of Iowa City and Snyder & Associates, Inc., of Iowa City, Iowa to provide engineering services for the 2022 Park Renovations Project. Whereas, the City desires the services of a qualified firm to provide Engineering and Landscape Architectural Services for the 2022 Park Renovations Project, hereinafter referred to as the Project; and Whereas, the Project involves making improvements at Chadek Green Park, Whispering Meadows Park and Court Hill Park, as recommended in the 2017 Parks Master Plan; and Whereas the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQL) for On -Call Professional and Design Services for calander years 2020 through 2022; and Whereas, submittals were received from consulting firms and evaluated by a selection committee; and Whereas, Consultant was selected based on qualifications and project specific criteria such as project approach, regulatory process experience, key personnel, schedule and price; and Whereas, funds are available in the Chadek Green Park Playground and Shelter account #R4350, the Whispering Meadows Park Ecological Restoration & Park Improvements account #R4357, and the Court Hill Park Shelter & Playground Replacement account #R4368. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The Consultant Agreement attached hereto is in the public interest, and is approved as to form and content. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached Consultant Agreement. 3. The City Manager is authorized to execute amendments to the Consultant Agreement as they may become necessary. Passed and approved this Attest: .L.e City lerk 7th day of —16 Al ---L Saptemhar , 2021 Approve 1 by Cit Ao 3(s Office (Sue Dulek — 8/27/2021) Resolution No. Page 2 21-239 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Bergus Mims X _ _ Salih X Taylor Teague X Thomas X Weiner Consultant Agreement This Agreement, made and entered into this 7th day of September 2021 by and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City and Snyder & Associates, Inc., of Iowa City, Iowa, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant. Whereas, the City desires the services of a qualified firm to provide Engineering and Landscape Architectural Services for the 2022 Park Renovations Project, hereinafter referred to as the Project; and Whereas, the Project involves making improvements at Chadek Green Park, Whispering Meadows Park and Court Hill Park, as recommended in the 2017 Parks Master Plan at; and Whereas the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQL) for On -Call Professional and Design Services for calendar years 2020 through 2022; and Whereas, Submittals were received from consulting firms and evaluated by a selection committee; and Whereas, Consultant was selected based on qualifications and project specific criteria such as project approach, regulatory process experience, key personnel, schedule and price; and Whereas, funds are available in the Chadek Green Park Playground and Shelter account #R4350, the Whispering Meadows Park Ecological Restoration & Park Improvements account #R4357, and the Court Hill Park Shelter & Playground Replacement account #R4368. Now Therefore, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the City does now contract with the Consultant to provide services as set forth herein. I. Project Description The scope of work consists of three separate and distinct park sites that will be designed, bid and constructed as one Project. The description for each park site is as follows: A. Chadek Green Park: 1. Includes a new combination shelter, restroom and storage premanufactured building that supports community gardens with the following features: a. Outdoor sink/counter/work space. b. Community storage for garden tools. c. Additional water sources for gardens. d. Storage for mulch and compost. 2. Includes a small parking area with handicapped parking and accessible paths to park features. 3. May include playground if strong interest by neighbors and feasible within project budget once other priorities are established. B. Whispering Meadows Park Ecological Restoration & Park Improvements Project: Page 1 of 10 1. Includes a "pocket park" playground. 2. Includes a new shelter with an accessible path to the street and a water service. C. Court Hill Park Shelter & Playground Replacement Project 1. Includes a new playground. 2. Includes up to two new replacement shelters. 3. Includes new accessible trails and paths between park features. II. Scope of Services Consultant agrees to perform the following services for the City, and to do so in a timely and satisfactory manner. A. Basic Services 1. Attend Project meetings, communicate, provide agenda, record, and distribute meeting minutes to the members of the Project team, and report progress to the City for the duration of the Project. Attend and facilitate City review meetings following each submittal milestone (preliminary concepts, 30%, 60%, 90% documents). Provide project management including preparation and revisions of the Project schedule at each submittal milestone. B. Preliminary Evaluation 1. Facilitate a Project kickoff meeting including members of the Project team to visit each site and review the scope, goals, and administrative details of the Project. B. Review the 2017 Gather Here Parks System Master Plan. C. Design Phase 1. Provide topographic survey for each Project site. 2. Solicit play equipment proposals, specific to each site, from at least three (3) providers using cooperative bid eligible equipment. 3. Develop up to three (3) preliminary concepts for each Project site, nine (9) total, for on-line public input. The City shall assist with webpage design and host on City website. Consultant shall provide content including, but not limited to, drawings and renderings. 4. Attend and facilitate neighborhood meetings for each Project site. The City shall schedule the meetings, provide the venue, and invite the stakeholders. Consultant shall provide presentation materials including, but not limited to, drawings and renderings 5. Further develop and provide 30% complete plans, specifications and cost opinion based on selected concepts. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance shall be demonstrated to be feasible on the 30% plans. 6. Provide 60% complete plans, specifications, and cost opinion. ADA compliance shall be fully demonstrated on the 60% plans. Page 2 of 10 7. Provide 90% complete plans, specifications, cost opinion, draft stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and draft permit applications. 8. Present results of public input and design to Parks Commission. 9. Provide bidding documents, final cost opinion, SWPPP, and permit applications. D. Bidding and Negotiation Phase 1. Facilitate the distribution of bidding documents to prospective bidders. Cost of bidding document expenses shall be by the City. 2. Organize and conduct a pre-bid conference; prepare agenda; record and distribute meeting minutes for prospective bidders. 3. Prepare responses to questions from prospective bidders and provide clarifications and interpretations of the Bidding Documents to the prospective bidders in the form of Addenda. 4. Assist with the opening of the bids, and subsequently documenting and distributing the bidding results, as directed by the City. 5. Review bids and make a formal award recommendation to the City. E. Construction Phase 1. Organize, create an agenda, and conduct a preconstruction conference. Prepare and distribute meeting minutes. 2. Organize and conduct regular progress meetings. Prepare and distribute meeting minutes; an average of one site meeting every other week of construction for the duration of the Project. 3. Conduct regular site visits, at intervals appropriate to the stage of the Contractor's operations, in order to: a. Become generally familiar with and to keep the Owner informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed. b. Determine in general if the Work is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed will be in general accordance with the Contract Documents. 4. Keep the City reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and promptly report to the City: a. Known deviations from the Contract Documents. b. Known deviations from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor. c. Defects and deficiencies observed in the Work 5. Review Contractor submittals to check for conformity with the Contract Documents. 6. Review and respond to requests for information about the Contract Documents. Page 3 of 10 7. Review and issue Change Orders for the City's approval and execution as required. 8. Review Contractor Pay Estimates and certify, that to the best of the Consultant's knowledge, the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount certified. 9. Conduct a post construction review of the Work and issue punch list of deficiencies and items to be completed. 10. Conduct a final review of the work after the contractor has notified Consultant that they have completed the punch list. F. Project Close Out 1. Provide a formal letter indicating that the Work has been completed according to the Contract Documents and recommend that the City accept the Project. 2. Consultant shall prepare and provide Plans of Record, based on changes to the Contract Documents and Contractor mark-ups, in electronic format as follows: a. One complete set of as -constructed Plans of Record shall be provided in portable document format (pdf). b. CAD files shall be in the most recent version of Autodesk AutoCAD. If the files(s) have been translated from another CAD application it should be noted as such. c. Each plan sheet should be complete and ready to print. d. Plot style files shall be included. e. If applicable, include all file types used in the plan set; these may include, but not be limited to, linked attachments such as images, spreadsheets, and external reference drawings. Do not include any Project data files or other documents not contained within the plan set. If necessary, include a "Readme" document or any clarification that may be required. f. All drawing files that have externally referenced drawings shall be inserted or bound into the drawing file. All submittals shall include an explanation of the Consultant's CAD layer scheme. h. All drawing files shall have the correct layer scheme in place. g. G. Services Not Included: 1. Environmental services 2. Geotechnical investigations 3. Construction staking 4. Materials testing 5. Post construction survey Page 4 of 10 Ill. Time of Completion The Consultant shall complete the following phases of the Project in accordance with the schedule shown. Preliminary Evaluation October, 2021 Design Phase February, 2022 Bidding and Negotiation Phase March, 2022 Construction Phase November, 2022 Close Out December, 2022 IV. Compensation for Services Consultant shall be compensated for performing the Scope of Services on an hourly basis in accordance with the Standard Hourly Fee Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, not to exceed $86,500 as outlined below: Preliminary Evaluation $10,000 Design Phase $58,500 Bidding and Negotiation Phase $1,500 Construction Phase $13,500 Close Out $3,000 Subtotal $86,500 Total Not -to -Exceed Amount for Services $86,500 Page 5of10 V. General Terms A The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts. 1. To discharge or refuse to hire any individual because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. 2. To discriminate against any individual in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. B Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all work and services performed up to the time of termination. However, such sums shall not be greater than the "not -to -exceed" amount listed in Section III. The City may terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to the Consultant. C This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided that no assignment shall be without the written consent of all Parties to said Agreement. D It is understood and agreed that the retention of the Consultant by the City for the purpose of the Project shall be as an independent contractor and shall be exclusive, but the Consultant shall have the right to employ such assistance as may be required for the performance of the Project. E It is agreed by the City that all records and files pertaining to information needed by the Consultant for the Project shall be available by said City upon reasonable request to the Consultant. The City agrees to furnish all reasonable assistance in the use of these records and files. F It is further agreed that no Party to this Agreement shall perform contrary to any state, federal, or local law or any of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. G At the request of the City, the Consultant shall attend meetings of the City Council relative to the work set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by the City shall be given with reasonable notice to the Consultant to assure attendance. H The Consultant agrees to furnish, upon termination of this Agreement and upon demand by the City, copies of all basic notes and sketches, charts, computations, and any other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement without cost, and without restrictions or limitation as to the use relative to specific Projects covered under this Agreement. In such event, the Consultant shall not be liable for the City's use of such documents on other Projects. The Consultant agrees to furnish all reports, specifications, and drawings with the seal of a licensed professional as required by Iowa law. Page 6 of 10 J The City agrees to tender the Consultant all fees in a timely manner, excepting, however, that failure of the Consultant to satisfactorily perform in accordance with this Agreement shall constitute grounds for the City to withhold payment of the amount sufficient to properly complete the Project in accordance with this Agreement. K Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the remaining portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and continue in full force and effect. L Original contract drawings shall become the property of the City. The Consultant shall be allowed to keep reproducible copies for the Consultant's own filing use. M Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project will be paid by the City. N Upon signing this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges that Section 362.5 of the Iowa Code prohibits a City officer or employee from having an interest in a contract with the City, and certifies that no employee or officer of the City, which includes members of the City Council and City boards and commissions, has an interest, either direct or indirect, in this Agreement, that does not fall within the exceptions to said statutory provision enumerated in Section 362.5. 0 Indemnification 1. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, expenses, including attorney's fees, and for any damages which may be asserted, claimed or recovered against or from the City by reason of personal injury, including bodily injury or death, and property damages, including loss of use thereof, caused by Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in performing the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. Consultant assumes full responsibility for any and all damage or injuries which may result to any person or property by reason of Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement, and agrees to pay the City for all damages caused to the City's premises resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant. 3. The Consultant's obligation to indemnify the City shall not include the obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City against lability, claims, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligent act, error, or omission of the City. 4. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "Consultant" means and includes the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, sub -consultants, and others for whom Consultant is legally liable, and the term "City" means and includes the City of Iowa City, Iowa its Mayor, City Council members, employees, and volunteers. Page 7 of 10 P Insurance 1. The Consultant agrees at all times material to this Agreement to have and maintain professional liability insurance covering the Consultant's liability for the Consultant's negligent acts, errors and omissions in the sum of $1,000,000 Per Claim, $1,000,000 Annual Aggregate, or a $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable state law, a Waiver of Subrogation Clause (endorsement) shall be added. 2. Consultant agrees to provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing that all coverages, limits and endorsements required herein are maintained and in full force and effect, and certificates of Insurance shall provide a minimum thirty (30) day endeavor to notify, when available by Consultant's insurer. If the Consultant receives a non -renewal or cancellation notice from an insurance carrier affording coverage required herein, or receives notice that coverage no longer complies with the insurance requirements herein, Consultant agrees to notify the City within five (5) business days with a copy of the non -renewal or cancellation notice. Q Standard of Care 1. The Consultant shall perform services for, and furnish deliverables to, the City pertaining to the Project as set forth in this Agreement. The Consultant shall possess a degree of learning, care and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable professionals, practicing in this area under similar circumstances. The Consultant shall use reasonable diligence and professional judgment in the exercise of skill and application of learning. 2. Consultant represents that the Services and all its components shall be free of defects caused by negligence; shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care of other professional service providers in a similar Industry and application; shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement; and shall be sufficient and suitable for the purposes expressed in this Agreement. 3. All provisions of this Agreement shall be reconciled in accordance with the generally accepted standards of the Engineering Profession. 4. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall exist without regard to, and shall not be construed to be waived by, the availability or unavailability of any insurance, either of City or Consultant. R There are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Agreement, it is the entire Agreement, and no other monies or considerations have been solicited. Page 8 of 10 S This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. Any legal proceeding instituted with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Johnson County, Iowa. The parties hereto hereby submit to personal jurisdiction therein and irrevocably waive any objection as to venue therein, including any argument that such proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum. For the Cit For the Consultant By: Title: Date: Attest: yor 09/07/2021 C�. By: Id 4 ifit4114i Title: B 1.45(A uJrr L£vWet Date: M6usT Zo2f Page 9 of 10 Approved by: City Attor -y's Office (Sue Dulek - 08/27/2021) Date EXHIBIT A SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021-22 STANDARD FEE SCHEDULE Billing Classification/Level Billing Rate Scientist Professional Engineer, Landscape Architect. Land Surveyor, GIS, Environmental Project Manager, Planner, Right -of -Way Agent, Graphic Designer Principal H $220.00 /hour Principal I $209.00 /hour Senior $190.00 /hour VIII $174.00 /hour VTI $165.00 /hour VI S157.00 /hour V $146.00 /hour IV $136.00 /hour III $124.00 /hour H $112.00 /hour 1 Technical CADD, Survey , Construction Observation $99.00 /hour Lead $133.00 /hour Senior $127.00 /hour VIII S118.00 /hour VII $109.00 /hour VI $98.00 /hour V $88.00 /hour TV $80.00 /hour III S72.00 /hour II $66.00 /hour 1 $58.00 $68.00 /hour /hour Administrative II 1 Reimbursables Mileage $56.00 current IRS standard /hour rate Outside Services As Invoiced Page 10 of 10 Item Number: 6.g. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest an Agreement by and between the City of Iowa City and Strand Associates, Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin to provide engineering services for the Digester Complex Rehabilitation Project. Prepared By: Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Tim Wilkey, Wastewater Division Superintendent Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: $118,700 available in the Digester Complex Rehabilitation fund #V3151 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Pictures Resolution Agreement Executive Summary: This agenda item authorizes an agreement to provide consultant services for the Digester Complex Rehabilitation Project. Background /Analysis: The City's digester complex was mostly constructed in 1987 and 2002, and has equipment in various stages of depreciation. Biological nutrient removal was incorporated during a 2012 project that expanded the capacity of the treatment facility. Currently, captured phosphorous is accumulating in the anaerobic digester complex causing Struvite formation. The City now desires to add a new process to remove phosphorous from the waste -stream, prior to or during digestion, and to improve sludge characteristics prior to screening. The City also desires to replace various digester components that are nearing the end of their useful lifespan and further explore the waste to energy concepts from a previous feasibility study. The immediate scope of work covered by this contract includes an engineering study to evaluate the existing digestion system and to provide recommendations for processes to remove waste - stream phosphorous, equipment replacement, future waste to energy projects and identification of grant opportunities. Future scope of work, not covered by this contract, is anticipated to include design, bidding and construction phase services. ATTACHMENTS: Description Pictures Resolution Agreement Digester Complex Struvite accumulation inside site piping. 9. Prepared by: Ben Clark, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; (319) 356-5436 Resolution No. 21-240 Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest an Agreement by and between the City of Iowa City and Strand Associates, Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin to provide engineering services for the Digester Complex Rehabilitation Project. Whereas, the City desires the services of a qualified firm to provide engineering services for the Digester Complex Rehabilitation Project, herein after referred to as the Project, located at the City's Wastewater Treatment Facility, 4366 Napoleon Street SE, Iowa City, IA 52240; and Whereas, the immediate scope of work includes an engineering study to evaluate the existing digestion system and to provide recommendations for processes to remove waste -stream phosphorous, equipment replacement, future waste to energy projects and identification of grant opportunities; and Whereas, future scope of work is expected to include design, bidding and construction phase services; and Whereas the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQL) for On -Call Professional and Design Services for calander years 2020 through 2022; and Whereas, Submittals were received from consulting firms and evaluated by a selection committee; and Whereas, Consultant was selected based on qualifications and project specific criteria such as project approach, regulatory process experience, key personnel, schedule and price; and Whereas, funds are available in the Digester Complex Rehabilitation fund #V3151. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The Consultant Agreement attached hereto is in the public interest, and is approved as to form and content. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached Consultant Agreement. 3. The City Manager is authorized to execute amendments to the Consultant Agreement as they may become necessary. Passed and approved this 7th , 2021 Attest: Cit Clerk / \ City Attorney's Office (Sara Greenwood-Hektoen - 09/02/2021) Resolution No. Page 2 21-240 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Bergus Mims X Salih X Taylor Teague X Thomas X Weiner Consultant Agreement This Agreement, made and entered into this 8th day of September 2021 by and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City and Strand Associates, Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant. Whereas, the City desires the services of a qualified firm to provide engineering services for the Digester Complex Rehabilitation Project, herein after referred to as the Project, located at the City's Wastewater Treatment Facility, 4366 Napoleon Street SE, Iowa City, IA 52240; and Whereas, the immediate scope of services includes an engineenng study to evaluate the existing digestion system and to provide recommendations for processes to remove waste -stream phosphorous, equipment replacement, future waste to energy projects and identification of grant opportunities; and Whereas the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for engineering services for the Project, and Whereas, Submittals were received from consulting firms and evaluated by a selection committee: and Whereas, Consultant was selected based on qualifications and project specific criteria such as project approach, regulatory process experience, key personnel, schedule and price; and Whereas, funds are available in the Digester Complex Rehabilitation fund #V3151. Now Therefore, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the City does now contract with the Consultant to provide services as set forth herein. I. Scope of Services Consultant agrees to perform the following services for the City, and to do so in a timely and satisfactory manner. A. Project Development 1. Review wastewater plant operational data, record drawings, previous reports, permits and other pertinent information provided by the City. 2. Conduct Workshop No. 1 to discuss the project scope, schedule, and expectations. 3. Conduct a site tour with City personnel. B. Basis of Planning 1. Conduct on-site condition assessments of major pieces of process equipment, motor control centers, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and structures. 2. Develop 20 -year projections of wastewater influent flows, loadings, sludge quantities, and gas production quantities based on population and development projections provided by City. 3. Evaluate existing digestion capacity, performance and process efficiencies. 4 Evaluate potential regulatory changes to overall nutrient removal requirements which may affect other treatment processes. Page 1 of 7 5. Develop draft Technical Memorandum No. 1 (TM -1), which will summarize the basis of planning. TM -1 will be submitted as a PDF file. 6. Conduct TM -1 review meeting remotely or in person. 7. Revise TM -1 as appropriate based on City's comments and submit the final TM -1 in PDF format. C. Digestion Upgrades 1. Conduct Workshop No. 2 to review potential anaerobic digestion upgrades, including capacity, mixing, pumping, heating (boilers, heat exchanger), electrical, HVAC, building shell, piping systems, overall operations and management, wall thimbles, digester cover rehabilitation or replacement, sludge screens, and related issues. 2. Evaluate alternative anaerobic digestion upgrades based on discussions at Workshop No. 2. 3. Develop TM -2, which will summarize the technical, financial, and non -monetary evaluations for anaerobic digestion facility upgrades. 4. Conduct TM -2 review meeting remotely or in person. 5. Revise TM -2 as appropriate based on City's comments and submit the final TM -2 in PDF format. D. Struvite Mitigation 1. Conduct Workshop No. 3 to review struvite mitigation alternatives, including engineered recovery or sequestration, iron addition, and carbon dioxide recovery/injection from renewable natural gas (RNG) production. 2. Evaluate alternatives discussed at Workshop No. 3. 3. Develop TM -3, which will include the technical, financial, and non -monetary evaluations for struvite mitigation alternatives. 4. Conduct TM -3 review meeting remotely or in person. 5. Revise TM -3 as appropriate based on City's comments and submit the final TM -3 in PDF format. E Digester Gas Reuse 1. Conduct Workshop No. 4 to review digester gas reuse alternatives, including cogeneration with microturbines or engines, pipeline injection, gas or hot water storage, vehicle use, and heating. 2. Evaluate alternatives discussed at Workshop No. 4. 3. Develop TM -4, which will summarize the technical, financial, and non -monetary evaluations for digester gas reuse alternatives. 4. Conduct TM -4 review meeting remotely or in person. 5. Revise TM -4 as appropriate based on City's comments and submit the final TM -4 in PDF format. Page 2 of 7 F. Grants and Funding 1. Research grant and other low-cost funding programs that could assist in financing the project(s), including federal energy-related grants, economic development grants, stimulus grants, innovation grants, State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) funding, and related programs 2. Develop TM -5, which will summarize grant and low-interest loan opportunities and programs for the City's review. 3. Conduct TM -5 review meeting remotely 4. Revise TM -5 as appropriate based on City's comments and submit the final TM -5 in PDF format. G. Facilities Plan Development 1. Develop a draft facility planning report that summarizes the previous technical memoranda and provides plan, schedule, and budget estimates that can be incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 2. Conduct Workshop No. 5 to review the draft plan. 3. Revise the facilities plan and submit the final document to the City in paper (3 copies) and electronic (PDF) format. H. Additional Scope of Services The City anticipates the future scope of services is expected to include design, bidding-, and construction -related services. These services will be provided through an amendment to this Agreement or through a new agreement with the City. II. Time of Completion The City anticipates authorizing these services by September 15, 2021 The Consultant shall complete the services by May 31, 2022. The City understands that Consultant's ability to deliver the project is dependent on the City's ability to review deliverables on a timely basis. Generally, review meetings will be scheduled within 1 to 2 weeks following submittal of each deliverable that requires review. III. Compensation for Services Consultant shall be compensated for performing the Scope of Services on an hourly basis plus expenses for an estimated, not -to -exceed fee of $118,700, in accordance with Consultant's hourly fee schedule below. Hourly Billing Rates* Principal Engineer 5285 to $350 Senior Project Manager $280 to $320 Senior Project Engineer $220 to $280 Project Engineers $150 to $230 Junior Project Engineers $120 to $160 Technicians $100 to $140 Administrative $ 90 to $110 • Updated annually on July 1 Page 3 of 7 IV. General Terms A The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts. 1. To discharge or refuse to hire any individual because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. 2. To discriminate against any individual in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. B Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all services performed up to the time of termination. However, such sums shall not be greater than the "not -to -exceed" amount listed in Section III. The City may terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to the Consultant. C This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided that no assignment shall be without the written consent of all Parties to said Agreement. D It is understood and agreed that the retention of the Consultant by the City for the purpose of the Project shall be as an independent contractor and shall be exclusive, but the Consultant shall have the right to employ such assistance as may be required for the performance of the Project. E It is agreed by the City that all records and files pertaining to information needed by the Consultant for the Project shall be available by said City upon reasonable request to the Consultant. The City agrees to furnish all reasonable assistance in the use of these records and files. F It is further agreed that no Party to this Agreement shall perform contrary to any state, federal, or local law or any of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. G At the request of the City, the Consultant shall attend meetings of the City Council relative to the services set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by the City shall be given with reasonable notice to the Consultant to assure attendance. Meetings in addition to those provided in Section I, Scope of Services, shall be considered additional services. H The Consultant agrees to furnish, upon termination of this Agreement and upon demand by the City, copies of all basic notes and sketches, charts, computations, and any other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement without cost, and without restrictions or limitation as to the use relative to specific Projects covered under this Agreement. In such event, the Consultant shall not be liable for the City's use of such documents on other Projects. The Consultant agrees to furnish all reports, specifications, and drawings with the seal of a licensed professional as required by Iowa law. The City agrees to tender the Consultant all fees in a timely manner, excepting, however, that failure of the Consultant to satisfactorily perform in accordance Page 4 of 7 with this Agreement shall constitute grounds for the City to withhold payment of the amount sufficient to properly complete the Project in accordance with this Agreement. K Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the remaining portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and continue in full force and effect. L Original contract drawings shall become the property of the City. The Consultant shall be allowed to keep reproducible copies for the Consultant's own filing use. M Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project will be paid by the City. N Upon signing this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges that Section 362.5 of the Iowa Code prohibits a City officer or employee from having an interest in a contract with the City, and certifies that no employee or officer of the City, which includes members of the City Council and City boards and commissions, has an interest, either direct or indirect, in this Agreement, that does not fall within the exceptions to said statutory provision enumerated in Section 362.5. O Indemnification 1. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, expenses, including attorney's fees, and for any damages which may be asserted, claimed or recovered against or from the City by reason of personal injury, including bodily injury or death, and property damages, including loss of use thereof, caused by Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in performing the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. Consultant assumes full responsibility for any and all damage or injuries which may result to any person or property by reason of Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement, and agrees to pay the City for all damages caused to the City's premises resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant. 3. The Consultant's obligation to indemnify the City shall not include the obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City against lability, claims, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligent act, error, or omission of the City. 4. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "Consultant" means and includes the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, sub -consultants, and others for whom Consultant is legally liable, and the term "City" means and includes the City of Iowa City, Iowa its Mayor, City Council members, employees, and volunteers. Page 5 of 7 P Insurance 1. The Consultant agrees at all times material to this Agreement to have and maintain professional liability insurance covering the Consultant's liability for the Consultant's negligent acts, errors and omissions in the sum of $1,000,000 Per Claim, $1,000,000 Annual Aggregate, or a,$1,000,000 Combined Single Limit. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable state law, a Waiver of Subrogation Clause (endorsement) shall be added. 2. Consultant agrees to provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing that all coverages, limits and endorsements required herein are maintained and in full force and effect, and certificates of Insurance shall provide a minimum thirty (30) day endeavor to notify, when available by Consultant's insurer. If the Consultant receives a non -renewal or cancellation notice from an insurance carrier affording coverage required herein, or receives notice that coverage no longer complies with the insurance requirements herein, Consultant agrees to notify the City within five (5) business days with a copy of the non -renewal or cancellation notice. Q Standard of Care 1. The Consultant shall perform services for, and furnish deliverables to, the City pertaining to the Project as set forth in this Agreement. The Consultant shall possess a degree of learning, care and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable professionals, practicing in this area under similar circumstances. The Consultant shall use reasonable diligence and professional judgment in the exercise of skill and application of learning. 2. Consultant represents that the Services and all its components shall be free of defects caused by negligence; shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care of other professional service providers in a similar Industry and application; shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement; and shall be sufficient and suitable for the purposes expressed in this Agreement. 3. All provisions of this Agreement shall be reconciled in accordance with the generally accepted standards of the Engineering Profession 4 Consultant's obligations under this Section shall exist without regard to, and shall not be construed to be waived by, the availability or unavailability of any insurance, either of City or Consultant R There are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Agreement, it is the entire Agreement, and no other monies or considerations have been solicited. S This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. Any legal proceeding instituted with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Johnson County, Iowa The parties hereto hereby submit to personal jurisdiction therein and irrevocably waive any objection as to venue therein, including any argument that such proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum. Page 6 of 7 For the Ci By: 1 cG ) Title: Maynr Jv� Date: Attest: c �,�a.�.e-amu- 9/8/7021 For the Consultant By: Title: £vrpc.r %-c^e--*ey Date: 9/21/7.01-1 Page 7 of 7 City Attorney's Office Date Item Number: 6.h. , CITY OF IOWA CITY ,!47 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest an Agreement by and between the City of Iowa City and SCS Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering consultant services for the Landfill Facility Plan 2021 — 2050. Prepared By: Joe Welter, Sr. Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: $139,510 available in the Landfill Equipment Building Replacement Project, Account #L3328 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Agreement Executive Summary: This agenda item approves the consultant agreement to prepare a planning document to evaluate and guide the future development, maintenance, and operations for the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center (Landfill) over the short term (Years 0-5), midterm (Years 6-10), and long term (over ten years, Years 11-30). The planning document will inform the design and placement of the new Equipment Building and other facilities at the Landfill. Background /Analysis: This project proposes to prepare a thirty year (2021-2050) planning document to evaluate and guide the future development, maintenance, and operations for the Landfill. The City desires a new Equipment Building, which is planned for construction in 2023, and the best location for the new building will be dependent upon other adjoining operations at the Landfill. This planning document will inform the design and placement of the new building. The major components evaluated during this project will include: new building planning; compost operations analysis; overall site layout (i.e. cell sequencing, roads, and scale operations) and traffic flow. The main focus of the document will be the short term period of the first five years (Years 0-5) and the midterm period of the second five years (Years 6-10). Lesser focus will be given on the periods greater than ten years (over ten years, Years 11-30). ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Agreement Prepared by: Joe Welter, Engineering Division, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240, (319) 356-5144 Resolution No. 21-241 Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest an Agreement by and between the City of Iowa City and SCS Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering consultant services for the Landfill Facility Plan 2021 — 2050. Whereas, the City of Iowa City owns and operates the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center (Landfill), which serves all of Johnson County as well as cities of Riverside and Kalona; and Whereas, the safe and efficient development, maintenance, and operation of the Landfill is vital to the Landfill's service area; and Whereas, the City desires to conduct a thirty-year planning document (2021-2050) to evaluate and guide the future development, maintenance, and operations at the Landfill for the short term (Years 0-5), midterm (Years 6-10), and long term (over ten years, Years 11-30); and Whereas, the planning document will guide the design and placement of future buildings including a new Equipment Building; and Whereas, the City desires the services of a qualified consulting firm to prepare the planning document; and Whereas, the City issued a Request for Qualifications, On -Call Professional Design, Engineering, and Planning Services for the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center (2021 - 2022), March 17, 2021, to private consulting firms interested in providing design and engineering services in the City of Iowa City; and Whereas, submittals were received from consulting firms and evaluated by a selection committee; and Whereas, the Consultant was selected based on qualifications, key personnel, project approach, and fees and rates; and Whereas, the City of Iowa City has negotiated a Consultant Agreement for said consulting services with Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. dba SCS Engineers, to provide said services; and Whereas, it is in the public interest to enter into said Consultant Agreement with SCS Engineers; and Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Landfill Equipment Building Replacement Project, Account L3328. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The Consultant Agreement attached hereto is in the public interest, and is approved as to form and content. Resolution No. 21-241 Page 2 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached Consultant Agreement. 3. The City Manager is authorized to execute amendments to the Consultant Agreement as they may become necessary. Passed and approved this 7 ch day of Sept nihPr , 2021 Attest: 12 k14, f 1 City Clerk C, May Approved by City Att• ey's Office (Liz Craig — 8/27/2021) It was moved by Salih and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Absent: x Bergus X Mims X Salih Taylor g Teague x Thomas x Weiner Consultant Agreement This Agreement, made and entered into this 7th day of September 2021 , by and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City, and Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. dba SCS Engineers, a Virginia corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant. Whereas, the City of Iowa City owns and operates the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center (Landfill), which serves all of Johnson County as well as cities of Riverside and Kalona; and Whereas, the safe and efficient development, maintenance, and operation of the Landfill is vital to the Landfill's service area; and Whereas, the City desires to conduct a thirty-year planning document (2021-2050) to evaluate and guide the future development, maintenance, and operations at the Landfill for the short term (Years 0-5), midterm (Years 6-10), and long term (over ten years, Years 11-30), and; Whereas, the planning document will guide the design and placement of future buildings including a new Equipment Building, and; Whereas, the City desires the services of a qualified consulting firm to prepare the planning document, and; Whereas, the City issued a Request for Qualifications, On -Call Professional Design, Engineering, and Planning Services for the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center (2021 — 2022), March 17, 2021, to private consulting firms interested in providing design and engineering services related to public improvement projects in the City of Iowa City, and; Whereas, submittals were received from consulting firms and evaluated by a selection committee, and; Whereas, Consultant was selected based on qualifications, key personnel, project approach, and fees and rates, and; Whereas, the City of Iowa City has negotiated a Consultant Agreement for said consulting services with Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. dba SCS Engineers, to provide said services, and; Whereas, it is in the public interest to enter into said Consultant Agreement with SCS Engineers; and Whereas, funds are available in the Landfill Equipment Building Replacement Project, Account L3328, and; Now Therefore, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the City does now contract with the Consultant to provide services as set forth herein. Scope of Services Consultant agrees to perform the following services for the City, and to do so in a timely and satisfactory manner. TASK 1 - DATA REVIEW/ANALYSIS Consultant shall gain a comprehensive understanding of site operations, programs, cell phasing, environmental compliance, and traffic patterns among other areas to obtain a complete picture related to the short, mid-range, and long-term future of the Landfill. Consultant shall review facility information available on the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Document DNA website, and reports from the City's completed Methane Feasibility Study. Consultant shall request other information from City Staff (Staff) including scale/tonnage information, facility usage numbers, and other information deemed pertinent through review. A formal request will be made for information not available to the public. Once Consultant has obtained the above-described data, Consultant shall review and draft a summary of said data. Consultant shall also prepare a site map incorporating into the base map (to be requested) the location of the proposed power lines, water line, bulk water fill station, and other existing or proposed structures not included on the base map (to be requested in CAD or GIS format). This map will be the basis for evaluating future proposed modifications. TASK 2 - EQUIPMENT BUILDING PLANNING Consultant will interview Staff and compile a list of their needs for the overall building. Consultant will ask questions of Staff related to the overall Facility Plan project during this time. The Consultant will assimilate and discuss results with Staff to confirm components considered to move forward. Component priority will be determined to make sure appropriate phasing can be planned in future budgeting cycles. Key points considered will include: • Square footage necessary for equipment storage within the first phase; maintaining Buildings A and/or B for overflow as required. Square footage necessary for other functional areas determined by Staff including, but not limited to, maintenance bays, shop, employee breakroom, workout room, restrooms, shower, training room, offices, and parking. Building location(s). • Building phasing and timing. • Building A and B Status throughout phasing of the new building development. Task deliverable: Memo detailing the agreed upon components to be included for the new equipment building, the intended phasing for construction, and the square footage for the building(s) and its associated components. TASK 3 - COMPOST OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Compost operations are located immediately west of Buildings A and B with little room to expand to the east. The access road is located to the north and landfill cells to the south. Spatial limitations as well as the length of time required for processing compost further constrain the current operations. With additional space, additional volumes could be processed while maintaining current operational methods. However, a change in operations may allow for throughput of additional material on the same or a smaller footprint. This needs to be balanced with several factors, including, but not limited to, the potential for the Wastewater Division to begin processing food waste through anaerobic digestion, the cost -benefit of purchasing compost operations equipment to modify operational methods, City goals for waste reduction, and the space required and available for compost operations. Consultant will utilize the Wasteshed Analysis TM (CAAP — Methane Recovery Feasibility Study, HDR, February 2020), in addition to conversations with Staff, to estimate potential growth available for the compost facility. Consultant will evaluate three separate scenarios of incoming material quantities — current, mid-range of estimated, and maximum recoverable of estimated. Consultant will evaluate operations for each of these tonnages under the current method and with a windrow turner (pull -behind and self-propelled) to determine space requirements as well as capital, operations, and maintenance costs. Consultant will evaluate the use of a static pile system or a hybrid between an aerated static pile and windrow system at a high level, utilizing costs from similar sized facilities. Consultant will review results of the compost evaluation with Staff to identify preferred assumptions and methods for the short, mid-range, and long-term future timeframes for use in the Facility Plan development. Task deliverable: Memo detailing current and anticipated future volumes of organic material considered, operational footprint required under each volume scenario and potential operational method, and capital costs associated with each volume and operational method scenario. TASK 4 - OVERALL SITE LAYOUT AND TRAFFIC FLOW Consultant will consider a number of ancillary components with the Facility Plan, in addition to evaluation and planning for the new equipment building compost operations. Ancillary components for consideration with a description of the work to be completed are listed below. • Customer Engagement: Consultant will interview select haulers to determine likes and dislikes" about existing infrastructure and traffic patterns at the Landfill. Consultant will schedule interviews for either when the SCS Project Team is onsite for a project meeting or related work or interviews will be conducted by phone. Consultant will present results to Staff for consideration in the Facility Plan Layout. • FY 72 -FY 73 Evaluation: Staff have had discussions in preliminary site planning related to future landfill cells and space for ancillary operations. The earliest cells utilized, FY 72 and FY 73, are believed to contain a relatively small amount of waste — 73,000 tons and 73,500 tons, respectively, by estimates. In addition, there are several compliance issues within this area which consume time and financial resources. Consultant will prepare a cost estimate for recovering this space for alternative uses through the over excavation of the in-place waste. Consultant will review information from borings previously completed in the area to estimate how much soil is located over the waste, which could be removed by the City rather than a contractor. • Bulk Water Fill Station: A bulk water fill station will be installed at the Landfill in conjunction with the extension of a potable water line to the site as part of the Melrose Avenue / IWV Road — Highway 218 to Hebl Avenue Improvement Construction Project. The end of the proposed water main is currently planned to be placed by Building B. Consultant will evaluate proposed infrastructure changes to provide a recommendation for the bulk water fill station location. • Cell Sequencing: Staff have a good idea on the available planned life at the Landfill. The Fiscal Year 2021 Airspace Analysis will provide the current estimates of life between the constructed cells and those yet to be constructed (north, northeast, and northwest). Consultant will provide a phasing sequence for the unconstructed cells with consideration of planned operations and roadway locations. • Access and Internal Roads: Minimizing wait times, safety, and ease of travel on site are important aspects of landfill customer service. As operations potentially shift around, the Facility Plan will assess haul road locations with the best available travel path to reach intended operations without continually spending money to rebuild roads. Traffic routing may change in the short, mid-level, and long-term planning and needs to be considered to the appropriate level for each of these scenarios. • Scale Number and Location: Currently, customers are required to scale in and out of the Landfill, unless their vehicle has a tare weight on file. This leads to long lines and wait times for customers. Several options exist to manage this situation with varying levels of associated costs. Consultant will evaluate potential solutions based on the location of infrastructure during the considered timeframes. Consultant will evaluate the number and location of scales throughout the various scenarios in addition to considering if certain materials, such as compost, need to go across the scale and or if they can be managed on a volume basis. • Consideration of Unknowns: The City also operates the East Side Recycling Center, South Side Recycling Site, and the Refuse and Curbside Collections Facility. Staff will be evaluating the services provided at these facilities to determine if programs currently at the Landfill can be moved or shared at other sites. Consultant will communicate with Staff to determine what, if any, shifts are occurring and use this information in considering areas that are reserved onsite for current and anticipated future programs. Task deliverable: Memos detailing the findings. These will be grouped together as appropriate for related items. TASK 5 - FACILITY PLAN Consultant will compile the determinations made in the previous tasks into a Design Basis Summary, providing background and decisions made through this process. Consultant will utilize the results to develop the Facility Plan. Three phased plans will show the short-term, mid-range, and conceptual long-term plan for the Landfill. Consultant will prepare cost estimates in today's dollars for capital improvements including compost capital and operations, cell development. potential waste relocation, and roads. Details provided in the cost estimates will be in line with the level of detail associated with the items within the short, mid-range, or long-term schedule. A schedule will be used to detail the phasing. Task deliverable: Will include the following components: • Design Basis Summary • Facility Plan including: — Site maps for short, mid-range, and long-term programs — Ran documenting short, mid-range, and long-term capital projects — Estimated costs In addition, Consultant will provide support to Staff to hold a City Council Engagement Event at the Landfill through providing project material, educational signs, and in-person support. TASK 6 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT Consultant will facilitate the following project management activities to effectively communicate and share information throughout the development of the Facility Plan. • Project Kick -Off Meeting (#1): Meeting will be held to review and affirm the collective's understanding of the data, facility conditions, operations, programs and services, and planning desires. Meeting #1 will occur in Task #1 after the data request has been made and the initial data review is completed. • Project Meeting #2: Meeting will be held to discuss Consultant's initial findings, concepts, potential preliminary recommendations for the new equipment building(s), compost, landfill, scale, and traffic. Part of this discussion may also include how the other facilities' programs/services may influence and impact the Landfill site planning. Meeting #2 will occur at approximately 300/n of project completion. • Project Meeting #3: Meeting will be held to show basis findings and draft recommendations for building, compost, landfill, scale, and traffic. This is a conceptual design that includes approximate costs and schedule. This information is to be the basis of the Facility Plan and will occur at approximately 60% of project completion. • Project Meeting #4: Meeting will be held to review final layouts and details and address questions. Finishing touches for final presentation will be done after this meeting. This will occur at 90% of project completion. • Final Presentation: Consultant will make the final presentation as directed by Staff. • Internal Bi -Weekly Check -Ins: Consultant will hold these 15 minute meetings internally every other Thursday internally to address: — Current status - High-level questions - Upcoming deliverables and schedule - Challenges • External Bi -Weekly Check -Ins: Consultant will hold these 15 minute meetings with Staff every other Thursday to address: — Current status - High-level questions - Upcoming deliverables and schedule - Challenges • Project Administration: This includes miscellaneous tasks associated with project administration to make sure the project is on schedule and budget. — Overall coordination — Resource management — Updates of overall project schedule - Project deliverable management — Telephone calls — Project status reports — Monthly Invoicing II. Time of Completion The Consultant shall complete the following phases of the Project in accordance with the schedule shown. Task Estimated Start Date Estimated End Date 1 Data Review/Analysis September 8, 2021 October 29, 2021 2 Equipment Building Planning October 11, 2021 December 23, 2021 3 Compost Operations Analysis October 11, 2021 December 23, 2021 4 Overall Site Flow November 15, 2021 February 11, 2022 5 Facility Plan February 14, 2022 June 10, 2022 6 Project Management September 8, 2021 June 10, 2022 III. Compensation for Services Compensation shall be based on the rates and fees shown in the following Standard Fee Schedule. The total cost of services, including fees, shall not exceed $139,510. STANDARD FEE SCHEDULE Labor Category Rate Senior Project Advisor $235 Senior Project Director $210 Project Director $195 Project Advisor $180 Senior Project Manager $165 Project Manager $150 Senior Project Professional $135 Project Professional $120 Staff Professional $110 Designer/Graphics $105 Associate Professional $95 Senior Technician $80 Technician $70 Project Administrator $85 Administrative Assistant $65 Note: Increase hourly rate by 1.5 for Saturday, Sunday, and holiday work or off -shift work when required by client. 1. Schedule labor rates include overhead and profit on labor. Costs for sub -consultants, subcontractors, job-related employee travel and subsistence, equipment, supplies, and other direct costs are billed at cost plus a 15 percent administration fee. 2. A communication fee of 1 percent of project labor will be charged for telephone, copying, postage, IT, and similar project production costs. 3. Invoices will be prepared monthly or more frequently for work in progress unless otherwise agreed. Printing Services 24 -inch by 36 -inch plots $25.00 each 36 -inch by 48 -inch plots $25.00 each Additional Report Copies (varies depending on report) $25.00 - $50.00 per report Support Vehicles Support Vehicle $0.70 per mile SCS Support Truck $40.00 per day plus $0.70 per mile SCS Support Truck with Trailer $60.00 per day plus $0.85 per mile SCS Utility Truck $60.00 per day plus $0.70 per mile Rental Vehicle Cost plus 15% Per Diem and Travel Hotel, Airfare Cost plus 15% Full -Day Meal Allowance $46.00 per day Half -Day Meal Allowance $23.00 per day Field Equipment and Supplies Track -mounted Geoprobe® $750.00 per day All Terrain Vehicle (ATV/UTV) $75.00 per day Field Sampling Trailer S350.00 per day GPS Surveying System $225.00 per day Total Station Survey Equipment $120.00 per day Misc. Survey Tools/Equipment $10.00 per day Nuclear Density Gauge $100.00 per day Photoionization Detector (PID) $100.00 per day Water Level Indicator (<300 foot) $30.00 per day Oil/Water Interface Probe $60.00 per day pH/Temperature/Conductivity Meter (for water) $20.00 per day Peristaltic Pump $40.00 per day Hand Augers (10 -foot) $15.00 per day Measuring Tape//heel $5.00 per day Hand-held GPS Unit $25.00 per day Generator $75.00 per day Air Compressor (5 gallon) $25.00 per day Electro fusion Machine $120.00 per day Flow-Thru Multi -Parameter Meter $150.00 per day Turbidimeter $35 per day Composite Sampler $75 per day QED Pump Controller $100 per day GEM 2000 $150 per day Flow Probe (15 -foot) $15 per day Digital Camera $10 per day Expendable Equipment, Supplies & Rentals Cost + 15% IV. General Terms A. The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts. 1. To discharge or refuse to hire any individual because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. 2. To discriminate against any individual in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. B. Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all work and services performed up to the time of termination. However, such sums shall not be greater than the "not -to -exceed" amount listed in Section III. The City may terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to the Consultant. C. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided that no assignment shall be without the written consent of all Parties to said Agreement. D. It is understood and agreed that the retention of the Consultant by the City for the purpose of the Project shall be as an independent contractor and shall be exclusive, but the Consultant shall have the right to employ such assistance as may be required for the performance of the Project. E. It is agreed by the City that all records and files pertaining to information needed by the Consultant for the project shall be available by said City upon reasonable request to the Consultant. The City agrees to furnish all reasonable assistance in the use of these records and files. F. It is further agreed that no Party to this Agreement shall perform contrary to any state, federal, or local law or any of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. G. At the request of the City, the Consultant shall attend meetings of the City Council relative to the work set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by the City shall be given with reasonable notice to the Consultant to assure attendance. H. The Consultant agrees to furnish, upon termination of this Agreement and upon demand by the City, copies of all basic notes and sketches, charts, computations, and any other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement without cost, and without restrictions or limitation as to the use relative to specific projects covered under this Agreement. In such event, the Consultant shall not be liable for the City's use of such documents on other projects. I. The Consultant agrees to furnish all reports, specifications, and drawings with the seal of a licensed professional as required by Iowa law. J. The City agrees to tender the Consultant all fees in a timely manner, excepting, however, that failure of the Consultant to satisfactorily perform in accordance with this Agreement shall constitute grounds for the City to withhold payment of the amount sufficient to properly complete the Project in accordance with this Agreement. K. Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the remaining portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and continue in full force and effect. L. Original contract drawings shall become the property of the City. The Consultant shall be allowed to keep reproducible copies for the Consultant's own filing use. M. Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project will be paid by the City. N. Upon signing this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges that Section 362.5 of the Iowa Code prohibits a City officer or employee from having an interest in a contract with the City, and certifies that no employee or officer of the City, which includes members of the City Council and City boards and commissions, has an interest, either direct or indirect, in this Agreement, that does not fall within the exceptions to said statutory provision enumerated in Section 362.5. O. Indemnification 1. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, expenses, including attomey's fees, and for any damages which may be asserted, claimed or recovered against or from the City by reason of personal injury, including bodily injury or death, and property damages, including loss of use thereof, caused by Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in performing the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. Consultant assumes full responsibility for any and all damage or injuries which may result to any person or property by reason of Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement, and agrees to pay the City for all damages caused to the City's premises resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant. 3. The Consultant's obligation to indemnify the City shall not include the obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City against lability, claims, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligent act, error, or omission of the City. 4. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "Consultant" means and includes the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, sub -consultants, and others for whom Consultant is legally liable, and the term "City" means and includes the City of Iowa City, Iowa its Mayor, City Council members, employees, and volunteers. P. Insurance 1. The Consultant agrees at all times material to this Agreement to have and maintain professional liability insurance covering the Consultant's liability for the Consultant's negligent acts, errors and omissions in the sum of $1,000,000 Per Claim, $1,000,000 Annual Aggregate, or a $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable state law, a Waiver of Subrogation Clause (endorsement) shall be added. 2. Consultant agrees to provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing that all coverages, limits and endorsements required herein are maintained and in full force and effect, and certificates of Insurance shall provide a minimum thirty (30) day endeavor to notify, when available by Consultant's insurer. If the Consultant receives a non -renewal or cancellation notice from an insurance carrier affording coverage required herein, or receives notice that coverage no longer complies with the insurance requirements herein, Consultant agrees to notify the City within five (5) business days with a copy of the non -renewal or cancellation notice. Q. Standard of Care 1. The Consultant shall perform services for, and furnish deliverables to, the City pertaining to the Project as set forth in this Agreement. The Consultant shall possess a degree of learning, care and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable professionals, practicing in this area under similar circumstances. The Consultant shall use reasonable diligence and professional judgment in the exercise of skill and application of learning. 2. Consultant represents that the Services and all its components shall be free of defects caused by negligence; shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care of other professional service providers in a similar Industry and application; shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement; and shall be sufficient and suitable for the purposes expressed in this Agreement. 3. All provisions of this Agreement shall be reconciled in accordance with the generally accepted standards of the Engineering Profession. 4. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall exist without regard to, and shall not be construed to be waived by, the availability or unavailability of any insurance, either of City or Consultant. R. There are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Agreement, it is the entire Agreement, and no other monies or considerations have been solicited. S. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. Any legal proceeding instituted with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Johnson County, Iowa. The parties hereto hereby submit to personal jurisdiction therein and irrevocably waive any objection as to venue therein, including any argument that such proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum. For the Ci By: By. Title: Date: 09[07/2021 Date: August 27, 2021 For the onsult t� Mayor ,t Title: Vice President Attest: Appro by: ' City Attorneys Office (Liz Craig - 08/27/2021) Date Item Number: 6.i. , CITY OF IOWA CITY ,!47 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution authorizing the acquisition of property interests necessary for construction of the Rochester Avenue Reconstruction from Ralston Creek to N. First Avenue Project. Prepared By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Reviewed By: Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff F ruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: Funding will be via the Rochester Avenue Reconstruction account #S3950 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Location Map Executive Summary: Preliminary design for the Rochester Avenue Reconstruction from Ralston Creek to N. First Avenue Project has been completed, and the proposed improvements require the acquisition of permanent right-of-way (ROW) and temporary construction easements within the project corridor. Permanent ROW will be acquired near the Rochester Avenue intersections with Rita Lyn Court and N. First Avenue, while temporary construction easements will also be needed throughout the corridor. Background /Analysis: Rochester Avenue serves as an arterial within the City of Iowa City. The street pavement along Rochester Avenue, from First Avenue to the bridge over Ralston Creek, has reached the end of its useful life and deteriorated in condition and requires frequent maintenance. The Project will include complete reconstruction of Rochester Avenue from First Avenue to the bridge over Ralston Creek. Additionally, the project will include improvements to the sidewalk, ADA curb ramps, utilities, signage, landscaping, and other associated work. Project Timeline: Fall 2021—Spring 2022 — Final design and property acquisitions Spring 2022—Fall 2023 — Construction ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Location Map Prepared by: Jason Havel, Engineering DMsion, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa city, IA 52240, 319-356-5410 Resolution No. 21-242 Resolution authorizing the acquisition of property interests necessary for construction of the Rochester Avenue Reconstruction from Ralston Creek to N. First Avenue Project. Whereas, the City of Iowa City desires to construct the Rochester Avenue Reconstruction from Ralston Creek to N. First Avenue Project ("Project") which includes the complete reconstruction of Rochester Avenue, from First Avenue to the bridge over Ralston Creek, as well as improvements to the sidewalk, ADA curb ramps, utilities, signage, landscaping, and other associated work; and Whereas, the City Council has determined that construction of the Project is a valid public purpose under State and Federal law, and has further determined that acquisition of certain property rights is necessary to construct, operate and maintain the proposed project; and Whereas, the City staff has determined the location of the proposed Project; and Whereas, City staff should be authorized to acquire necessary property rights at the best overall price to the City; and Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Rochester Avenue Reconstruction account #53950. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The City Council finds that it is in the public interest to acquire property rights by warranty deed, quit -claim deed, and/or easement for the construction of the Rochester Avenue Reconstruction from Ralston Creek to N. First Avenue Project which Project constitutes a public improvement under Iowa law. The City Council further finds that acquisition of said property rights is necessary to carry out the functions of the Project, and that such Project constitutes a valid public purpose under state and federal law. 2. The City Council hereby approves the site location of this public improvement project, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate the purchase of property rights by warranty deed, quit -claim deed and/or easement for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Project. The City Manager or designee is authorized to sign purchase agreements for the purchase of property and/or easements, and offers to purchase property and/or easements. 4. The City Manager or designee, in consultation with the City Attorney's Office, is authorized and directed to establish, on behalf of City, an amount the City believes to be just compensation for the property to be acquired, and to make an offer to purchase the property for the established fair market value. 5. In the event negotiation is successful, the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest easement agreements and agreements in lieu of condemnation. The City Attorney is hereby directed to take all necessary action to complete said transactions, as required by law. Resolution No. 21-242 Page 2 6. In the event the necessary property rights for the Project cannot be acquired by negotiation, the City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to initiate condemnation proceedings for acquisition of any and all property rights necessary to fulfill the functions of the Project, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 7th day of September , 2021 Attest: ' LCL, City Clerk It was moved by Salih adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: x x x x X X x Approved by • City Attornfiy's Office (Liz Craig — 8/27/2021) and seconded by Bergus Nays: Absent: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner the Resolution be 5 reg, c i �O• I- >#' ib�em=—e.� ; L- 'P.m_-���.mI.Q^.__Gloom-� fit. �. .�� �: •, 1 -� I m 11—y _f-: —1 elej y4� " '� �" ';:`� ��':� •�. �L' o..�.w Rochester,Ct o y i. � r Item Number: 6.j. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution authorizing the acquisition of property interests necessary for construction of the North Westminster Storm Sewer Improvements Project. Prepared By: Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: Funding available in the North Westminster Storm Sewer Upgrades account #M3633 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Location Map Executive Summary: Final design for the North Westminster Storm Sewer Improvements Project has been completed and the proposed improvements require the acquisition of temporary construction easements and permanent storm sewer easements within the project corridor. Temporary construction easements will be needed along the length of the project for sidewalk and driveway grading. Permanent storm sewer easements will be necessary at a few locations where new storm sewer structures will be installed. Background /Analysis: The North Westminster drainage area was studied in response to reported flash flooding near the intersection of North Westminster Street and Washington Street. The study confirmed that sections of the storm sewer system are inadequate to convey runoff for the City's current 5 -year design storm criteria. Surface flooding at these two locations can be deep enough to cover the width of the roadway, overtop the curb and flow onto adjacent properties, creating a potential for property damage and a public safety concern for vehicles. The Project involves the following: 1. Replace the Westminster Street existing 36" storm sewer with new 48" storm sewer from Washington Street to north of Bowling Green Place. 2. Replace the Washington Street existing storm sewer system with new larger pipe and add new storm intakes, west of Westminster. 3. Add new storm curb intakes along Westminster between Bowling Green Place and Hastings Avenue. 4. Replacement of Westminster pavement graded such to provide an appropriate overflow route during large storm events. 5. Replace street, sidewalk and driveway pavement associated with new storm sewer and Westminster overflow route. 6. Provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant sidewalks and curb ramps within the project limits. 7. Improvements to the water system at the intersection of Westminster/Washington and Westminster/Bowling Green by providing hydrant assemblies within 25 -feet of the intersections per standards with appropriate valving to allow for the hydrants to be used in multiple directions as a flush point. 8. Relocate and/or adjust sanitary sewer system components and other utilities within the project limits as needed to accommodate the new storm sewer system improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Location Map Prepared by Ben Clark, Engineering Division, 410 E. Washington StIowa City, IA 52240, 319-356-5436 Resolution No. 21-243 Resolution authorizing the acquisition of property interests necessary for construction of the North Westminster Storm Sewer Improvements Project. Whereas, the City of Iowa City desires to construct the North Westminster Storm Sewer Improvements Project ("Project") which includes storm sewer and drainage improvements, ancillary utility relocations and street and sidewalk reconstruction along North Westminster Street from East Washington Street to Hastings Avenue and along East Washington Street from Shrader Road to North Westminster Street; and Whereas, the City Council has determined that construction of the Project is a valid public purpose under State and Federal law, and has further determined that acquisition of certain property rights is necessary to construct, operate and maintain the proposed project; and Whereas, the City staff has determined the location of the proposed Project; and Whereas, City staff should be authorized to acquire necessary property rights at the best overall price to the City; and Whereas, funds for this project are available in the North Westminster Storm Sewer Upgrades account #M3633. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The City Council finds that it is in the public interest to acquire property rights by warranty deed, quit -claim deed, and/or easement for the construction of the North Westminster Storm Sewer Improvements Project ("Project") which Project constitutes a public improvement under Iowa law. The City Council further finds that acquisition of said property rights is necessary to carry out the functions of the Project, and that such Project constitutes a valid public purpose under state and federal law. 2. The City Council hereby approves the site location of this public improvement project, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate the purchase of property rights by warranty deed, quit -claim deed and/or easement for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Project. The City Manager or designee is authorized to sign purchase agreements for the purchase of property and/or easements, and offers to purchase property and/or easements. 4. The City Manager or designee, in consultation with the City Attorney's Office, is authorized and directed to establish, on behalf of City, an amount the City believes to be just compensation for the property to be acquired, and to make an offer to purchase the property for the established fair market value. Resolution No. 21-243 Page No. 2 5. In the event negotiation is successful, the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest easement agreements and agreements in lieu of condemnation. The City Attorney is hereby directed to take all necessary action to complete said transactions, as required by law. 6. In the event the necessary property rights for the Project cannot be acquired by negotiation, the City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to initiate condemnation proceedings for acquisition of any and all property rights necessary to fulfill the functions of the Project, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 7th Attest: day of Se. tember It was moved by Salih adopted, and upon roll call there were: and seconded by , 2021 Approved by City Attor y's Office - 8/26/2021 Bergus Ayes: Nays: Absent: x _ Bergus x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas Weiner x the Resolution be ARBOR HILL CIRCLE R CD � - - w SHRADER RD WESTMINSTER ST EXHIBIT A 4 HASTINGS AVE PROJECT LOCATION LEMME ELEMENTARY WASHINGTON ST SCOTT BLVD Item Number: 6.k. 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest a contract for construction of the Nevada Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project. Prepared By: Joe Welter, Sr. Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: $503,234.43 available in the Nevada Ave Sanitary Sewer Replacement, Account #V3147 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: This item awards the contract for construction of the Nevada Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project. The engineer's estimated cost for construction of the project is $462,000. 2 bids were submitted prior to the August 31, 2021 deadline: Bidder Name City Bid BG Brecke, Inc. Cedar Rapids, IA $503,234.43 Bockenstedt Excavating Iowa City, IA $555,853.50 BG Brecke, Inc. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid. Staff recommends awarding the Contract for the Nevada Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project to BG Brecke, Inc. Background /Analysis: The existing sanitary sewer system, along the back yards of the residential properties between Nevada Avenue and Regal Lane from Lakeside Drive to Whispering Meadow Drive, has a variety of deficiencies. Rehabilitation of the existing pipes is not possible. Approximately 960 linear feet of new ten -inch and eight -inch pipe will be installed to replace the existing deficient pipe, and sanitary sewer services will be reconnected to the new main. The areas excavated for installation will be restored with pavement or seeding. Fences will be restored to the edge of existing permanent utility easements, which will provide a twenty -foot wide grassed corridor for future maintenance or repair activities. Anderson -Bogert Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa developed the design for this project and will be assisting City staff during bidding, letting, and construction. Anderson - Bogert estimated the cost of the project as $462,000. The project was originally bid on July 8, 2021, but the only bid received was significantly over the engineer's estimate. Because of that, the bid was rejected and a new bidding date was set for August 31, 2021. Public outreach will be conducted this fall and next winter/spring to inform residents and owners of the intended schedule changes. The construction schedule will be April through August 2022. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Prepared by: Joe Welter, Public Works, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 356-5144 Resolution No. 21-244 Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest a contract for construction of the Nevada Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project. Whereas, B.G. Brecke, Inc. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid of $503,234.43 for construction of the above-named project; and Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Nevada Ave Sanitary Sewer Replacement, Account Number V3147; and Whereas, the City Engineer and City Manager are authorized to execute change orders according to the City's Purchasing Policy as they may become necessary in the construction of the above- named project. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The contract for the construction of the above-named project is hereby awarded to B.G. Brecke, Inc., subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate performance and payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance program statements. 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the contract for construction of the above-named project, subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate performance and payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance program statements. Passed and approved this 7th Attest : City lerk day of September r It was moved by Salih adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: x Approved b , 2021 ;i G C — City Attor y's Office (Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 9/1/2021) and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be Nays: Absent: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner Item Number: 6.1. 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution accepting the work for the Park Road Thru Arch Bridge — Pedestrian Deterrent Project. Prepared By: Melissa Clow, Special Projects Administrator Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Engineer's Report Resolution Executive Summary: The project has been completed by All American Concrete, Inc. of West Liberty, Iowa in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications. The Engineer's Report and the performance, payment and maintenance bond are on file in the City Engineer's office. • Project Estimated Cost: $ 35,000.00 • Project Bid Received: $ 100,330.00 • Project Actual Cost: $ 103,979.80 Background /Analysis: This project generally included the construction of four (4) concrete pedestrian deterrents located where the arches meet the sidewalk on the new Park Road Bridge over the Iowa River. The work included removal and replacement of Tex -Cote Coating, setting reinforcing steel, drilling concrete anchors in the existing bridge, construction of panels, pouring a concrete base to drain, drilling drain holes through existing traffic barrier, installation of ornamental railing and other associated items as noted on the plans to prepare the landscaped deterrent for planting by City staff. ATTACHMENTS: Description Engineer's Report Resolution ENGINEER'S REPORT August 27, 2021 City Council Iowa City, Iowa Re: Park Road Thru Arch Bridge — Pedestrian Deterrent Dear City Council: CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - 1826 (319) 356 - 5000 (319) 356 - 5009 FAX www.icgov.org I hereby certify that the construction of the Park Road Thru Arch Bridge — Pedestrian Deterrent Project has been completed by All American Concrete, Inc. of West Liberty, IA in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by HNTB of Kansas City, MO. The project was bid as a unit price contract and the final contract price is $103,979.80. There were two (2) change or extra work orders for the project as described below: 1. Modify the pedestrian deterrent end section to reduce the number of drill holes to be placed in the existing arch structure and add stainless-steel supports. $3,209.80 2. Weep Hole Epoxy Coating $440.00 I recommend that the above -referenced improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City. Sincerely, Jason Havel, P.E. City Engineer Prepared by: Melissa Clow, Engineering Division, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5413 Resolution No. 21-245 Resolution accepting the work for the Park Road Thru Arch Bridge — Pedestrian Deterrent Project Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the Park Road Thru Arch Bridge — Pedestrian Deterrent Project, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and All American Concrete, Inc. of West Liberty, IA, dated March 16, 2021, be accepted; and Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance, payment and maintenance bond have been filed in the City Engineer's office; and Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Iowa City Gateway Project account # S3809; and Whereas, the final contract price is $103,979.80. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa. Passed and approved this 7th day of September Attest: It was moved by Sa 1 i h adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: x x , 2021 c -"41(1/4 -s4 --- Approved by City A rney's Office — 8/30/2021 and seconded by Bergus Nays: Absent: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner the Resolution be Item Number: 6.m. , CITY OF IOWA CITY ,!47 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution accepting the work for the Villa Park Shelter Project. Prepared By: Scott Sovers, Assistant City Engineer Reviewed By: Juli Seydell Johnson, Parks and Recreation Director Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Engineer's Report Resolution Executive Summary: Work on the project was recently completed by McComas-Lacina Construction, LC of Iowa City, Iowa, in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications. The Engineer's Report and Performance and Payment bonds are on file with the City Engineer. • Project Estimated Cost: $ 80,000.00 • Project Bid Received: $ 67,400.00 • Project Actual Cost: $ 66,532.15 Background /Analysis: This project generally included miscellaneous site grading, water service and drinking fountain installation, sidewalk and shelter pad PCC paving, shelter and final surface restoration. ATTACHMENTS: Description Engineer's Report Resolution Prepared by: Scott Sovers, Asst. City Engineer, Engineering Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240, (319)356-5142 Resolution No. 21-246 Resolution accepting the work for the Villa Park Shelter Project Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the Villa Park Shelter Project, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and McComas- Lacina Construction LC of Iowa City, Iowa, dated July 8, 2020, be accepted; and Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance, payment and maintenance bond have been filed in the City Engineer's office; and Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Villa Park Redevelopment account # R4361; and Whereas, the final contract price is $66,532.15. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa. Passed and approved this 7th Attest: day of CityClerk It was moved by Salih adopted, and upon roll call there were: J September �J , 2021 Approved by City - ttorney's Office (Sue Dulek — 8/26/2021) and seconded by Bergus Ayes: Nays: Absent: x Bergus x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Weiner the Resolution be Item Number: 10. , CITY OF IOWA CITY ,!47 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution Amending the Current Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022. Prepared By: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer Reviewed By: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Fiscal Impact: FY2022 budget revisions funded through new revenues or available fund balance Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Related schedules Resolution Executive Summary: The Finance Department requests the City Council conduct a public hearing for consideration of amending the fiscal year 2022 annual budget on September 7, 2021. This is the first budget amendment for fiscal year 2022. Background /Analysis: Budget amendments are submitted to the Finance Department and reviewed for approval by the Finance Director and City Manager. Requests to carry appropriations over from one year to the next are also submitted and approved in the same manner. A formal recommendation for a budget amendment is then prepared for City Council approval. The State of Iowa allows cities to amend the annual operating budget for supplemental appropriation authority. These changes may include new or revised revenue and expenditure projections, transfers between funds, and capital improvement plan changes. Increased expenditures must utilize available fund balance or additional revenue sources, as the State does not allow amendments to increase property taxes. According to the City's financial policies, amendments to operating budgets will be made only in the following situations: • emergency situations • transfer from contingency • expenditures with offsetting revenues or fund balance • carry-over of prior year budget authority for expenses that had not been paid as of the end of the fiscal year. This proposed budget amendment increases overall revenues and transfers -in by $14,467,494, as shown on Line 15 of the attached notice (see Revenues & Other Financing Sources, lines 1- 15). The majority of the increase of revenues being amended is for intergovernmental revenues, miscellaneous, and other financing sources. Intergovernmental revenues (line 9) are being increased by $13,551,018, which primarily represents State and Federal grants on capital projects and HOME/CDBG revenues that are being carried forward from the prior year. Miscellaneous Revenues (line 12) are being amended by $195,000 for expected donations. Other Financing Sources (line 13) is being amended by $538,500 for UniverCity home and South District home sales. Additionally, Transfers in (line 14) are being amended by $182,976 for capital improvement projects. The section entitled Expenditures & Other Financial Uses (lines 16-28) provides for an increase in appropriations of $55,576,985. The majority of the increase in appropriations is related to governmental capital improvement projects that are being carry forward from prior years (line 23) and total $35,869,122. The next largest increase in appropriations is for the Business Type/Enterprise program (line 25) and totals $14,376,841. The increase in this program primarily reflects the carry forward of utility fund capital improvement projects from prior years. The last significant amendment is for the Community and Economic Development program (line 20) and totals $3,175,901. This primarily reflects the carry forward of appropriations for the CDBG/HOME programs, the UniverCity program, and the South District home program. In addition to carry forwards for operations and capital improvement projects, the amendment includes the purchase of townhomes for the South District home program, funds for a Recreation facilities master plan, and a culvert repair amongst other smaller amendment items. The net budgeted result to fund balances is a reduction of $40,718,827 (line 29), after factoring for re -estimated changes of $390,664 in the beginning fund balance (line 30). This reduction will be covered through excess fund balances and bond funds and will not affect property tax revenues or levies. The City Budget Amendment and Certification Resolution for the first budget amendment of fiscal year 2022 is attached to this memo along with a detailed list of the individual amendments. ATTACHMENTS: Description FY22 Notice of Public Hearing Resolution FY22 Budget Amendment #1 Prepared by: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240: 319-356-5063 Resolution number 21-247 Resolution amending the annual budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022. Whereas, the State of Iowa allows cities to amend their annual operating budget for supplemental appropriation authority; and Whereas, the City's financial policies allow amendments to operating budgets in the following situations: emergency situations, transfer from contingency, expenditures with offsetting revenues or fund balance, and carry-over of prior year budget authority for expenses that had not been paid as of the end of the fiscal year; and Whereas, a public hearing on the amended budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 was held at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting on September 7, 2021 following required public notice, and public comments were received. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The current budget, as approved and/or previously amended, is hereby amended in the detail set forth in the attached Notice of Public Hearing — Amendment of Current Budget and Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Amendment #1, showing revenue, expenditures, and program amendments for the current fiscal year, subject to modifications approved by Council at the public meeting. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the filings required by law, and to set up the books in accordance with the summary and details, as adopted. Passed and approved this 7th day of Septembe , 2021. Attest: LIP C Clerk ,r J or Approved City Attorney's Office — 8/31/2021 Resolution No. 21-247 Page 2 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Salih adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Absent: x Bergus x Mims Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Weiner the Resolution be NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT OF CURRENT BUDGET IOWA CITY Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 The City of IOWA CITY will conduct a public hearing for the purpose of amending the current budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 Meeting DatelTime: 9/7/2021 06:00 PM Contact: Kellie Fruehlinq Phone: (319) 356-5041 Meeting Location: 28 S. Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa or 410 E Washington, Iowa City If City Hall remains closed to the public, the meeting will be an the Zoom Meetings platform. Zoom information is at www.icgov.org/councildocs or at 319-356- 5043. There will be no increase in taxes. My residents or taxpayers will be heard for or against the proposed amendment at the time and place specified above. A detailed statement of: additional receipts, cash balances on hand at the close of the preceding fiscal year, and proposed disbursements, both past and anticipated, will be available at the hearing. REVENUES & OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Total Budget as Certified or Last Amended Current Amendment Total Budget After Current Amendment Taxes Levied on Property 1 66,911,637 0 66,911,637 Less Uncollected Delinquent Taxes - Levy Year 2 0 0 0 Net Current Property Tax 3 66,911,637 0 66,911,637 Delinquent Property Tax Revenue 4 0 0 0 TIF Revenues 5 4,125,528 0 4,125,528 Other City Taxes 6 2,706,502 0 2,706,502 Licenses & Permits 7 1,993,570 0 1,993,570 Use of Money & Property 8 2,748,956 0 2,748,956 Intergovernmental 9 36,567,188 13,551,018 50,118,206 Charges for Service 10 49,896,555 0 49,896,555 Special Assessments 11 290 0 290 Miscellaneous 12 3,320,916 195,000 3,515,916 Other Financing Sources 13 12,150,000 538,500 12,688,500 Transfers In 14 44,060,480 182,976 44,243,456 Total Revenues & Other Sources 15 224,481,622 14,467,494 238,949,116 EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING USES Public Safety 16 28,635,311 245,310 28,880,621 Public Works 17 11,424,982 110,000 11,534,982 Health and Social Services 18 660,250 0 660,250 Culture and Recreation 19 16,520,508 260,773 16,781,281 Community and Economic Development 20 9,689,018 3,175,901 12,864,919 General Government 21 11,851,079 1,356,062 13,207,141 Debt Service 22 13,084,764 0 13,084,764 Capital Projects 23 18,165,470 35,869,122 54,034,592 Total Government Activities Expenditures 24 110,031,382 41,017,168 151,048,550 Business Type/Enterprise 25 63,223,517 14,376,841 77,600,358 Total Gov Activities & Business Expenditures 26 173,254,899 55,394,009 228,648,908 Tranfers Out 27 44,060,480 182,976 44,243,456 Total Expenditures/Transfers Out 28 217,315,379 55,576,985 272,892,364 Excess Revenues &Other Sources Over (Under) Expenditures/Transfers Out 29 7,166,243 41,109,491 -33,943,248 Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 2021 30 141,659,115 390,664 142,049,779 Ending Fund Balance June 30, 2022 31 148,825,358 -40,718,827 108,106,531 Explanation of Changes: FY21 Capital Project expenditures carried forward include $6,768,000 for American Legion Rd, $5,225,000 for the pavement rehab program, $4,603,000 for Melrose Ave improvements, $3,469,000 for the Benton St Rehab, and Enterprise Fund projects: $1,184,000 for the Scott Boulevard Trunk Sewer. FY21 expenditures carried forward include $1,000,000 for Black Lives Matter funding and $1,165,000 for CDBG/HOME. Other amendments include $1,520,000 for purchase of South District homes and 5150,000 for the Recreation facilities master plan. Additional detail is available in the City Clerk's Office. 08/09/2021 03:34 PM Paoe 1 of 1 RECORD OF HEARING AND ADOPTION OF BUDGET AMENDMENT IO^iA. CITY Fiscal Year .July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 IOWA CITY conducted a public hearing for the or000se of amending the currant budget for the fiscal year ending June 30. 2022 Meeting Date: Meeting Time: Meeting Location: 917/202/ 06:00 PM 28 S, Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa or 410 E Washington, Iowa City If City Hall remains closed to the public, the meeting :will he on the Zoom Meetings platform, Zoom information is at w w.icgov.orglcouncildccs or at 319-355-5043. The governing body of the lOWA CITY mei with a q Iorwn prasen• and found that the notice of time and place of the hearing had been published as required by late and that the affidavit of publication is on file with the count , auditor. After hearing public comment the governing body took up the amendment to the budget for final consideration and determined that said budgeted exoenditures be amended as fellows REVENUES & OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Total Budget as Certified or Last Amended Current Amendment Total Budget After Current Amendment Taxes Levied on Propane 1 66,911.637.. 66,911,637 Less: Uncollected Delinquent Taxes - Levy Year 2 0 j 0 Net Current Property Tax 3 66,911,637 66,911,637 Delinquent Property Tax Revenue 4 0cj 0 TIF Revenues 5 4,125,528 0 4.125,523 Other City Taxes 5 2,706,502 0 2,706,502 Licenses & Permits 7 1 993.570 0 1,993,570 Use of Money & Property 6 2,748,956 0 2,748,9566 Intergovernmental 9 36,557,188 13,551,018 50.118,206 Charges for Service 10 49,896,555 0 49,396,555 Special Assessments 11 290 0 790 Miscellaneous 10 3,320,916 195,000 3,515,916 Other Financing Sources 13 12,150,000 538,500 12,688,500 Transfers In 14 44,060,480 182,9766 44.243,456 Total Revenues & Other Sources 15 224.481,622 14,467,494 238.949,116 EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING USES Public Safety 15 28,635,311 245,316 28,880,621 Public. Works 17 11,424,982 110,000 11,534,982 Health and Social Services 18 660,250 0 660,950 Culture and Recreation 19 16,520,508 260,773 16,781,251 Community and Economic Development 20 9,689,018 3,175.901 12,864,919 General Government 21 11,851,079 1.356,0662 13.207,141 Debt Service _ _ 22 13.084.764 0 . 13,084,764 Capital Projects 23 13,165.470 35,1369,122 54,034,592 Total Government Activities Expenditures 24 110,031,382 41,017,168 151.048.550 Business Type/Enterprise 25 63,223,517 14,376,841 77.600.358 Total Gov Activities & Business Expenditures 26 17 3,254,899 55.394.'009 228,645,908 Tranfsrs Out 27 44,060,480 152,976. 44;)43,456 Total Expenditures/Transfers Out 28 217,315,379 55,576,985 ")72,892,364 Excess Revenues & Other Sources Over Wnderi ExpendituresiTrensfers Out 29 7,166,243 11,109,491 33,943,248 Beginning Fund Balance July 1. 2021 30 141,859,115 390,664 142,049779 Ending Fund Balance June 30, 2022 31. 148,825,35631 -40,718,827 108,106,531 Explanation of Changes; F Y 21 Capital Project expenditures carried forward include $6,768,000 for American Legion Rd; $5,225,000 for the pavement rehab program, $4,603,000 for ivlelrasa ?Vie improvements, $3,469,000 for the Benton St Rehab, and Enterprise Fund projects: 91,164,000 for the Scott Boulevard Trunk Sewer. F' 21 expenditures carried forward include $1,000,000 for Black Lives Matter funding and 91,165,000 for 00601HOilIE. Other amendments include x1,520:0800 for purchase of South District homes and 8150,000 for the Recreation faci!iiies master. plan. Additional detail is available in the City Cler's Office. �� 09/07/2021 7 - City Cierk/Administrator Si 0109/2021 0 3:32 PM ature of Certification Adopted On RECEIVED JOHNSON CO. IOWA SEP 13 2021 Mayor Signature gyC rtification Pace 1 of 1 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Amendment #1 pig Object Pro ect Description Amount Program Line 10510100 432080 Moved park swing to FY22 & bought from CIP 15,000.00 19 10510100 432060 Rec Facilities Master Plan 150,000.00 19 10510311 472010 Police entrance door replacement 7,400.00 21 10540100 474420 Cemetery sander/spreader 5,000.00 19 10210257 474420 BCC equipment 10,000.00 21 10550430 469190 Library furniture 25,472.00 19 31530920 393140 Iowa River Trail culvert repair (95,000.00) 14 10310710 490040 Iowa River Trail culvert repair 95,000.00 27 31530920 473010 Iowa River Trail culvert repair 95,000.00 23 10610220 471010 South District townhouses 1,520,000.00 20 10310710 479999 GF Contingency (177,400.00) 21 Carry -forwards 10210200 432080 Website Redesign 90,000.00 21 10210410 432060 BLM 400,000.00 21 10210410 432080 BLM 200,000.00 21 10210410 432100 BLM 45,000.00 21 10210410 435059 BLM 10,000.00 21 10210410 445140 BLM 5,000.00 21 10210410 445180 BLM 40,000.00 21 10210410 448030 BLM 200,000.00 21 10210410 448040 BLM 100,000.00 21 10210510 448020 Strengthen Grow Evolve payments 250,000.00 20 10210510 432060 Retail recruitment study 12,500.00 20 10310710 448070 Workforce Housing Tax Credits 290,000.00 21 10410100 432080 Traffic Study and recruitment plan 18,000.00 16 10410100 436040 Training 6,000.00 16 10410100 436050 Training 13,000.00 16 10410100 436060 Training 15,000.00 16 10410100 436080 Training 6,000.00 16 10410310 444080 WatchGuard maintenance 17,000.00 16 10410310 469350 Ammunition and rifles 15,000.00 16 10410310 474420 Ped Mall Cameras - 105,310.00 16 10410427 442030 Heating system replacement 15,000.00 16 10530200 473010 Automatic Door Lock 20,351.00 19 10530225 473010 Prairie establishment contract 14,758.00 19 10530300 473020 Grapple truck 50,000.00 17 10540100 331200 907 Derecho cemetery markers funds (14,192.00) 9 10540100 473010 907 Derecho cemetery markers 14,192.00 19 10570100 469140 Wellness equipment 6,000.00 19 10570100 472010 Painting and front desk furniture 10,000.00 19 10610220 392100 Sale of 322 Douglass Court (135,000.00) 13 10610220 472010 Rehab of one 5.District duplex 60,000.00 20 10610220 392100 Sale of 2129 Taylor (133,500.00) 13 10610220 392100 Sale of 2021-2023 Taylor (270,000.00) 13 10610220 472010 2021-2023 Taylor rehab 41,613.00 20 10610610 469190 Workspace redesign 12,000.00 16 10610610 474420 Vehicle for Building Inspector 23,000.00 16 10610620 432060 South District FBC 31,528.00 20 10610620 432060 FBC incentive program 95,195.00 20 10610620 448010 Historic preservation grants 35,000.00 20 10610710 448010 PIN Grants 5,370.00 20 10610720 473010 Public Art funds 47,767.00 20 21610320 490160 Wetherby Park/neighborhood Improvements 87,976.36 27 21610320 448090 FY21 Downpmt Assistance 27,000.00 20 21610320 448010 FY21 CDBG rehab projects 78,000.00 20 21610320 448090 FY21 CDBG rehab projects 9,074.16 20 21610320 448090 FY21 CDBG rehab projects 50,000.00 20 21610320 448090 FY21 CDBG rehab projects 50,000.00 20 21610320 331100 FY21 CDBG rehab funding (302,050.52) 9 21610320 448010 CDBG CV 30,525.39 20 21610320 448070 CDBG CV 51,048.88 20 21610320 331000 CDBG CV funding (81,574.27) 9 21610410 448090 FY21 HOME Admin 21,948.69 20 21610410 331100 FY21 HOME Admin (21,947.69) 9 21610420 448090 FY19 HOME THF Rental rehab 24,999.00 20 21610420 448090 FY20 HOME THF Rental rehab 74,000.00 20 21610420 448090 FY20 South District 25,000.00 20 21610420 448090 FY20 Downpmt Assistance 53,000.00 20 21610420 448090 FY20 HOME Rehab 16,673.00 20 21610420 448090 FY21 South District 94,000.00 20 21610420 448090 FY21 HOME Rehab 90,000.00 20 21610420 448090 FY21 Downpmt Assistance 30,000.00 20 21610420 331100 FY21 HOME Rehab Funding (407,672.00) 9 22710325 469040 Street light bases 30,000.00 17 22710325 473010 Street light painting 30,000.00 17 23610216 448010 IEDA CDBG-CV 351,658.95 20 23610216 311000 IEDA CDBG-CV funding (351,658.95) 9 24210610 448010 Community Climate Action Grants 18,530.00 21 24210610 473010 Energy efficient Home rehab demo 65,653.00 21 24210610 432080 Cause Impact Marketing Study 51,879.00 21 31530910 393910 Wetherby Park/neighborhood improvements (87,976.36) 14 71810143 469190 Pay stations 6,945.00 25 71810230 443080 Transmission anad engine repairs 50,000.00 25 71810245 469190 Pay stations 6,000.00 25 74740110 331200 907 Derecho SW building (3,366.00) 25 74740110 473010 907 Derecho SW building 13,465.00 25 73730120 331200 907 Derecho funds (13,274.00) 25 73730120 445230 907 Derecho water meter 31,645.00 25 73730120 473010 907 Derecho Plant roof 15,601.00 25 73730130 474270 Pipe trailer 10,000.00 25 73730130 473010 Water Pvmt Patching 14,501.00 25 73730140 469290 Meter brass purchase 5,000.00 25 75750123 442010 Pavement replacement 9,944.00 25 81710510 475010 DEF system 60,500.00 X 81710520 474230 Equipment replacement 742,347.00 X 81710520 474270 Equipment replacement 110,976.00 X 83310510 476050 Storage Devices 132,511.00 X 84310320 475010 Copy machine replacements 32,000.00 X CIP Carry -forwards CIP CS Object Project Description Amount Program Line Reference 76850905 334900 Airport Entrance Rd and Parking (48,000.00) 9 A3447 76850905 432090 Airport Entrance Rd and Parking 15,000.00 25 A3447 76850905 473010 Airport Entrance Rd and Parking 45,000.00 25 A3447 76850905 331100 Runway 7/25 Design Conversion (225,000.00) 9 A3464 76850905 432090 Runway 7/25 Design Conversion 37,500.00 25 A3464 76850905 473010 Runway 7/25 Design Conversion 212,500.00 25 A3464 76850905 331100 Runway 25 Threshold Relocation (414,000.00) 9 A3470 76850905 432090 Runway 25 Threshold Relocation 258,094.00 25 A3470 76850905 331100 Runway 12/30 Threshold Relocation (65,025.00) 9 A3471 76850905 432090 Runway 12/30 Threshold Relocation 62,780.00 25 A3471 76850905 334900 Self Serve Fuel Station Kiosk Replacement (12,868.00) 9 A3472 76850905 473010 Self Serve Fuel Station Kiosk Replacement 17,540.00 25 A3472 31610900 473010 Carbon Emissions Reduction 398,077.00 23 E4520 31310790 476130 Permitting Software Upgrade 40,848.00 23 G4720 31310790 476130 Infrastructure Assest Management 692,345.00 23 G4724 31310790 472010 Citywide Building Card Access 136,662.00 23 G4725 75750905 432090 Landfill Equip Building Replacement 150,000.00 25 L3328 75750905 473010 South Side Recycling 620,000.00 25 L3334 75750905 474270 Excavator & Haul Truck 618,469.00 25 L3336 75750905 474230 Automated Curbside Collection 550,000.00 25 L3337 75750905 432090 Future Landfill Cell design 100,000.00 25 L3338 75750905 474270 Bulldozer Upgrade 425,000.00 25 L3341 75750905 432090 Landfill Gas Infrastructure 61,835.00 25 13343 75750905 473010 Landfill Gas Infrastructure 730,000.00 25 L3343 77770905 473010 Normandy Dr Storm Sewer Replacement 246,484.00 25 M3629 77770905 432090 Stevens Drive Storm Sewer Improvements 24,946.00 25 M3630 77770905 473010 Stevens Drive Storm Sewer Improvements 350,000.00 25 M3630 77770905 473010 Storm Water Improvements 488,693 00 25 M3631 77770905 473010 Lower Muscatine Storm Sewer 38,718.00 25 M3632 77770905 432090 77770905 432090 77770905 471010 77770905 473020 31710940 472010 31710940 473010 31710940 473010 31710940 473010 31530910 472010 31530910 473010 31530910 473010 31530910 473010 31530910 432090 31530910 472010 31530910 334900 31530910 432090 31530910 473010 31530910 432090 31530910 473010 31530910 472010 31530910 432090 31530910 473010 31530910 473010 31530910 334900 31530910 432090 31530910 471010 31530910 473010 31530910 334900 31530910 473010 31530910 473010 31530910 473010 31530910 473010 32710910 331100 32710910 473010 32710910 473010 32710910 473010 32710910 473010 32710910 334900 32710910 473010 32710910 331100 32710910 473010 32710910 471010 32710920 473010 32710950 473010 32710910 473010 32710920 331150 32710920 473010 32710910 311000 32710910 336110 32710910 473010 32710950 473010 32710910 432090 32710910 471010 32710910 473010 32710910 3311000 32710920 473010 32710920 334900 32710910 432090 32710910 471010 32710910 334900 32710910 432090 32710910 473010 32710920 432090 32710920 471010 32710930 432090 32710930 471010 32710930 473010 32710910 432090 N Westminster Storm Sewer Petsel Place Storm Sewer Petsel Place Storm Sewer Petsel Place Storm Sewer Public Works Facility Idyllwild Drainage West Riverbank Stablilization Sand/Salt Storage. Bunkers City Hall Projects - Other CIP Park Annual ADA Accessibility Cemetery Resurfacing Rec Center Annual Improvements Chadek Green Park Restroom/Shelter Rec Center ADA Improvrovements Whispering Meadows Shelter Whispering Meadows Shelter Whispering Meadows Shelter Glendale Park Shelter Glendale Park Shelter Mercer Park Pool Dehumidification Robert A Lee Pool Filter City Park Ball Field Mercer Park Ball Diamond Hwy 6 Trail Hwy 6 Trail Hwy 6 Trail Hwy 6 Trail Terry Trueblood Woodland Terry Trueblood Woodland Annual Tree Planting Pedestrian Mall Playground Park Facility Parking lot Overlay Gateway Project Traffic Signal Project Curb Ramps ADA Pavement Rehab Annual Complete Street Improvements Burlington/Madison Intersection Burlington/Madison Intersection American Legion Rd/Scott Blvd American Legion Rd/Scott Blvd American Legion Rd/Scott Blvd Bridge Maint/Repair Myrtle/Riverside Intersection McCollister Blvd -Gilbert to Sycamore Prentiss St Bridge Prentiss St Bridge Melrose Ave Improvrovements Melrose Ave Improvrovements Melrose Ave Improvrovements Firs Ave/Scott Blvd Intersection Court St Reconstruction Court St Reconstruction Benton St Rehab Benton St Rehab Second Ave Bridge Replacements Second Ave Bridge Replacements Rochester Av Reconstruction Rochester Av Reconstruction Dodge St Reconstruction Dodge St Reconstruction Orchard St Reconstruction Gilbert St Bridge Replacement Gilbert St Bridge Replacement Gilbert Ct Sidewalk Gilbert Ct Sidewalk Gilbert Ct Sidewalk Foster Road Elevation 60,238.00 25 M3633 7,295.00 25 M3636 10,000.00 25 M3636 284,920.00 25 M3636 50,359.00 23 P3959 251,027.00 23 P3976 157,303.00 23 P3981 409,832.00 23 P3985 83,238.00 23 R4129 77,752.00 23 R4132 50,000.00 23 R4145 15,176.00 23 R4330 60,000.00 23 R4350 269,359.00 23 R4351 (8,550.00) 9 R4357 10,000.00 23 R4357 90,000.00 23 R4357 9,466.00 23 R4366 257,500.00 23 R4366 798,909.00 23 R4369 60,000.00 23 R4370 283,468.00 23 R4373 86,166.00 23 R4374 (438,000.00) 9 R4376 21,613.00 23 R4376 25,000.00 23 R4376 510,000.00 23 R4376 (20,000.00) 9 R4377 200,000.00 23 R4377 152,854.00 23 84380 378,931.00 23 R4383 200,000.00 23 R4386 (210,880.00) 9 53809 129,455.00 23 53814 31,207.00 23 53822 5,225,501.00 23 53824 755,838.00 23 53827 (1,732,212.00) 9 53834 331,877.00 23 53834 (3,600,000.00) 9 53854 5,841,948.00 23 53854 926,000.00 23 53854 213,851.00 23 53910 515,138.00 23 53933 319,153.00 23 53934 (321,580.00) 9 53935 59,052.00 23 53935 (930,000.00) 9 53936 (1,600,000.00) 9 53936 4,603,065.00 23 53936 1,191,771.00 23 S3944 282,673.00 23 53946 225,000.00 23 53946 3,468,679.00 23 53947 (1,315,860.00) 9 53947 643,276.00 23 53949 (379,948.00) 9 53949 118,876.00 23 53950 50,000.00 23 53950 (1,000,000.00) 9 53952 1,247,071.00 23 53952 1,021,208.00 23 53954 101,967.00 23 53956 25,000.00 23 53956 1,312.00 23 53957 3,000.00 23 53957 85,000.00 23 53957 75,000.00 23 53961 32710930 473010 32710920 43209D 32710930 432090 32710930 473010 32710910 432090 71810915 473010 71810915 473010 71810915 474420 71810915 474420 71810915 474420 71810915 474420 71810915 473010 71810925 432090 71810925 473010 71810925 474270 71810925 473010 71810925 474420 71810925 473010 71810925 472010 71810925 432090 71810925 473010 71810925 474420 72720905 473010 72720905 473010 72720905 473010 72720905 473010 72720905 473010 72720905 432090 72720905 432090 72720905 473010 72720905 432090 72720905 473010 72720905 432060 73730905 432090 73730905 473010 73730905 473010 73730905 473010 73730905 473010 73730905 432090 73730905 473010 73730905 475010 31410940 362100 31410940 432040 31410940 472010 31410910 334610 31410910 474420 31450910 474230 31450910 473010 Highland Ct Sidewalk Burlington St Bridge Replacement Scott Blvd Sidewalk Scott Blvd Sidewalk Fairchild St Reconstruction Parking Facility Restoration Rec Center Parking Lot Replacement Electronics Smart Park Automated Parking Equipment Automated Parking Equipment EV Charging Station Repl LED fixtures Transit Facility Relocation Bus Shelter Replacment Bus Sign Replacement Transit Facility Parking Lot Overlay Transit Mobile Column Muscatine Ave Pedestrian/Transit Bus Wash Repair Transit Interchange/Bus Stop Transit Interchange/Bus Stop Transit Interchange/Bus Stop Annual Sewer Projects Scott Boulevard Trunk Sewer Melrose Ct Sanitary Sewer Nevada Ave Sanitary Sewer West Pk Lift Station Rehab West Pk Lift Station Rehab Digester Complex Rehab Influent Rake & Screen Repl Rohret South Sewer Dewatering Roll Off Paving Wastewater Distribution Asset Dill St Water Main Repl Dill St Water Main Repl Jordan Well Rehab Collector Well Capacity Impr Peninsula Well power redund Chlorine Feeder Upgrade Chlorine Feeder Upgrade Water Front Meeting Room AV Animal Sery Storage Garage Animal Sery Storage Garage Animal Sery Storage Garage Crime Scene Mapping System Crime Scene Mapping System Fire Apparatus Replacement Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay 55,000.00 23 53962 300,000.00 23 53963 10,000.00 23 53964 110,000.00 23 53964 100,000.00 23 53965 151,058.00 2513004 295,803.00 25 T3019 200,000.00 25 T3020 275,000.00 25 T3023 400,000.00 25 T3023 30,000.00 25 T3024 100,000.00 25 T3025 200,000.00 25 T3055 175,434.00 25 T3059 95,000.00 25 T3062 37,800.00 25 T3063 60,000.00 2513064 33,560.00 25 T3065 100,000.00 25 T3066 20,000.00 25 T3067 80,000.00 25 T3067 100,000.00 25 T3067 1,292,640.00 25 V3101 1,184,157.00 25 V3145 64,749.00 25 V3146 421,608.00 25 V3147 95,500.00 25 V3148 10,000.00 25 V3148 110,184.00 25 V3151 852,536.00 25 V3153 250,000.00 25 V3155 89,539.00 25 V3156 170,000.00 25 V3166 13,178.58 25 W3222 725,000.00 25 W3222 150,000.00 25 W3305 641,461.44 25 W3311 231,160.00 25 W3315 15,000.00 25 W3316 100,000.00 25 W3316 45,000.00 25 W3317 (195,000.00) 12 Y4442 15,000.00 23 Y4442 180,000.00 23 Y4442 (50,000.00) 9 V4444 49,151.00 23 V4444 1,592,168.00 23 Z4406 95,000.00 23 Z4409 State Form Program Lines Use of Money & Property Intergovernmental Charges for Services Miscellaneous Other Financing Sources Transfers In Public Safety Public Works Health & Social Services Culture & Recreation Community & Economic Development General Government Debt Service Capital Projects Business-Type/Enterprise Transfers Out Internal Service (not budgeted) Internal Service (not budgeted) Excess Revenues & Other Financing Sources under Expenditures/Transfers Out 8 (13,551,018.43) 9 10 (195,000.00) 12 (538,500.00) 13 (182,976.36) 14 245,310.00 16 110,000.00 17 18 260,773.00 19 3,175,901.07 20 1,356,062.00 21 22 35,869,122.00 23 14,376,841.02 25 182,976.36 27 1,078,334.00 X 42,187,824.66 (1,078,334.00) 41,109,490.66 29 Item Number: 11. , CITY OF IOWA CITY ,!47 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution approving the preliminary operational budget for the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission that runs from July of 2021 through December of 2021. Prepared By: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator Reviewed By: Sue Dulek, First Assistant City Attorney Geoff F ruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: Preliminary Operational Budget is $337,500 from July 2021 - December 2021. Recommendations: Staff: No Recommendation Commission: The Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission approved this preliminary operational budget at its meeting of July 8, 2021 by a vote of 8-0 (Commissioner Daniels not present). Attachments: Resolution Preliminary Operational Budget (July 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021) Executive Summary: This resolution approves the preliminary operational budget submission for the Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission from July 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021. The budget is submitted pursuant to Resolution 20-228 that established the Ad Hoc Commission. Background /Analysis: On September 16, 2020, the City Council established the Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission (see Resolution 20-228) to bear witness to the truth of racial injustice in Iowa City and to carry out restorative justice, through the collection of testimony and public hearings, with such work to include a recommendation to the Council of a plan for dedicating and/ or renaming public spaces and/ or rights of way in honor of the Black Lives Matter movement. As part of Resolution 20-228, the Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is required to recommend to City Council a preliminary operational budget for funds needed to carry out the charges of the TRC beyond what existing City staff, programs, and services can provide. The City Council committed to allocate City funds of $1,000,000 to support Resolution 20-159, which includes a variety of initiatives, among them the Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Description resolution Preliminary Budget n. CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 3, 2021 Late Handouts Distributed To: Mayor and City Council From: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator _ 2 Re: Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Preliminary BANS) City Council Resolution No. 20-228 established the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on September 15, 2020. The resolution provides that the Commission shall be facilitated by an independent consultant, funded by the City. The resolution further asks that the Commission submit a preliminary budget for funds needed to carry out the charges of the TRC beyond what existing City staff, programs, and services can provide. In June of 2021, the Commission put out a request for proposals for a facilitator. On July 14, 2021 the Commission received a response from Kearns and West, a woman -owned collaboration and strategic communications firm founded in 1984. The proposal offers a national team of experts in truth and reconciliation, human rights, mediation, conflict resolution, restorative justice, policing, and social justice to serve as facilitators to the Commission with a proposed timeline of 7-9 months. The Commission submitted a preliminary budget for Council consideration and approval for Council formal meeting date of July 27, 2021. This item was deferred by Council to the August 17, 2021 formal meeting. The Commission submitted a subsequent preliminary budget for the formal Council meeting of August 17, 2021, this budget was deferred to the formal Council meeting of September 7, 2021. Kearns and West presented on their proposal which was followed by Q&A with the Commission at their meeting of September 2, 2021. At this same meeting, the Commission discussed and decided to submit the attached itemized budget to the Council. The vote passed 7-1 (Commissioner Nobiss in the negative). This itemized budget replaces all previous versions. The only line item on this budget is the cost to the City to hire a facilitator. Kearns and West have been able to demonstrate both in their proposal and presentation that they have the experience and expertise that is desired of a facilitator for the Commission as outlined in Resolution No. 20-228. If this itemized budget is approved by Council, the Commission plans on presenting Council with the facilitator agreement for the September 21, 2021 formal Council meeting. If approved, the Commission will work with Kearns and West to develop and submit their preliminary budget to Council in the near future. City of Iowa City Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission Itemized Budget Proposal Budget Budget Line Item Facilitator Amount $197,907.00 Notes for Line Item(s) The listed amount is proposed for the facilitator position that the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission is tasked with hiring based on the requirements provided by the City of Iowa City Council (for over a year) through their 7-1 vote to establish a "TRC:' K EARNS !r WEST ITEM C: Price Schedule Role Rate Task 1: Convenin ' and Understandm Project Manager Senior and Senior Advisor Associate Facilitator $185.00 $185.00 $160.00 Facilitator and Advisor $550.00 Facilitator Strategic and Advisor Advisor TOTAL $300.00 $0.00 • Assumptions Mr. Gonzalez's time is paid for by his salary with Beyond Conflict. . - 1.a: Kickoff call (scheduling and •lannin•, next ste•s list) 2 2 2 0 0 2 8 TRC meeting kickoff - virtual 90 -minute meeting hosted b the Ci . 1.b: Project management & Team Coordination 25 12.5 37.5 4 4 0 83 Manage project budget, schedule, and deliverables. Coordinate with City staff. Assume half-hour weekly team meetin.s for duration of TRC work 1.c: Back. round research 12 6 12 4 4 2 40 Background research (including reviewing Iowa City reports, previous TRC materials, and relevant media articles) 1.d: Develo. work .lan 10 5 15 2 2 2 36 Assume 1 -on -1 interviews with TRC members, selected City staff/Council members. Assume one review from TRC and Staff .rior to finalization 1.e: Strate. is assistance 10 1 1 1 1 1 15 Strategic assistance to provide support to City staff and other stakeholders for unanticipated TRC coordination as the need arises. Task 1 total hours 59 26.5 67.5 11 11 7 182 Task 1 total labor $10,915.00 $4,902.50 $10,800.00 $6,050.00 $3,300.00 $0.00 $35,967.50 Total - Task 1 ---- $35,967.50 Task 2: Desi; n of Fact-Findin• ruth-Tellin- /Reconciliation Process 2.a Conduct interviews via phone, video conference, and email/electronic survey with communi or.anizations 9 0 15 0 0 0 24 Discuss how best to engage their respective communities. Assumes 12 45 -minute interviews + follow up reporting 2.b Draft fact-finding and process report 10.5 10.5 21 0 0 0 42 • Begin facilitation of Task Force process to identify locations for listening sessions • Hold and Facilitate Listening Sessions (Number to be determined by Commission) Prepare Task Force for attendance at Listening Sessions (Assume u. to 6 90 -minute listening sessions) 2.c: TRC communication (includes draftin. content for 12 24 60 0 0 0 96 Assume drafting content for online portal to assist with fact-findin.-truth-tellin., for traditional and social Kearns & West Response to Facilitator for Truth and Reconciliation Commission Page 14 1 K EARNS 4 WEST Role Rate Project Manager and Senior Facilitator Advisor Senior Facilitator Facilitator Strategic Associate and Advisor and Advisor Advisor TOTAL Assumptions Mr. Gonzalez's time is paid for by his salary with Beyond $185.00 $185.00 $160.00 $550.00 $300.00 0.00 Conflict. online portal, traditional media release, and public service announcements) media, and other means of outreach as needed throughout the project timeline. Task 2 total hours 31.5 34.5 96 0 0 0 _ ( 162 Task 2 total labor $5,827.50 $6382.50 $15,360.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27.570.00 Total - Task 2 $27,570.00 Task 3: Fact -Finding + Truth -Telling Public Process 3.a: Coordinating logistics for in- oerson events 6 0 32 0 0 0 38 Assume coordinating logistics, RSVPs, and other one- site logistics. Assumes the City provides location. 3.b: Train Conversation Corps 24 0 0 2 2 2 30 Assumes design and delivery of training for up to 25 community volunteers for half-day training 3.c: Coordinate and facilitate fact-finding meetings 24 8 24 4 8 8 76 Assume drafting agenda, facilitation plan, and facilitating and/or helping TRC members facilitate four fact-finding/truth-telling public events, including help with developing script for events, questions for witnesses, etc. 3.d: Develop after -action report 2 0 6 0 0 0 8 Assume analyzing results of public events (testimonies, comments, etc.) and developing report. Task 3 total hours 56 8 62 6 10 10 152 Task 3 total labor $10.360.00 $1,480.00 $9.920.00 $3.300.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $28,060.00 Total - Task 3 $28,060.00 Task 4: TRC Meetings 4.a: Develop meeting strategy, proposed and annotated agendas, and presentation/meeting materials 15 7.5 22.5 2 2 2 51 Assumes K&W will take lead on developing agenda content 4.b: Coordinate and facilitate project team meetings and individual coordination meetings to prepare for TRC meetings 45 0 45 0 0 0 90 • Kearns & West Team to provide draft materials within agreed upon review timeframes for distribution by the City one week prior to Task Force meetings • Kearns & West Team to participate with the City in up to 2 planning meetings with City staff team per Task Force meeting • Kearns & West Team to participate in up to 2 individual coordination meetings with key City departments per Task Force meeting Kearns & West Response to Facilitator for Truth and Reconciliation Commission Page 15 KEARNS 4 WEST Role Rate Project Manager and Senior Advisor Facilitator $185.00 $185.00 Senior Facilitator Facilitator Strategic Associate and Advisor and Advisor Advisor $160.00 $550.00 $300.00 $0.00 TOTAL Assumptions Mr. Gonzalez's time is paid for by his salary with Beyond Conflict. 4.c: Coordinate and facilitate TRC meetings 60 0 60 15 15 60 210 Assume facilitating up to 15 TRC meetings. TRC meetings will be up to 3 hours each, once a month, and follow a regularly set meeting schedule. 4.d: Develop meeting summaries 15 0 45 0 0 0 60 Develop meeting summaries following each TRC meeting for City staff team review. Assume 2 review rounds per deliverable (draft and final for distribution by City to TRC: refinements for final version from TRC input) Task 4 total hours 135 7.5 172.5 17 17 62 411 Task 4 total labor $24.975.00 $1,387.50 $27,600.00 $9,350.00 $5,100.00 S0.00 $68.412.50 Task 5: Report Compilation 5.a Compile information from TRC and subcommittee meeting summaries 6 T 0 24 0 0 0 30 5.b Draft report 10 2.5 15 1 1 0 29.5 Assume up to 1 round of review 5.c Revise and prepare final report 5 2.5 15 0 2.5 0 25 Task 4 total hours 21 5 54 1 3.5 0 87.5 Task 4 total labor $3.885.00 1 $925.00 58.640.00 $550.00 $1,050.00 $0.00 $15.050.00 Total - Task 5 $15.050.00 Total Hours for all Tasks 302.5 81.5 452 35 41.5 79 991.5 Total Labor for all Tasks $55,962.50 $15.077.50 $72,320.00__ _ $19,250.00 $12,450.00 $0.00 $175,060.00 Total Labor $175,060.00 Other Direct Costs r Technology to bolster reach of fact-finding and truth -telling $10,000 Can include ability to host televised town hall, specialized software ODC total for all Tasks $10,000.00 Travel Airfare to Iowa City $275.00 $275.00 $275.00 $325.00 $400.00 $350.00 $1,900.00 Hotel (2 nights) $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $1,152.00 Kearns & West Response to Facilitator for Truth and Reconciliation Commission Page 16 ilk KEARNS 4 WEST Role Project Manager and Senior Facilitator Rate $185.00 Per Diem meals incidentals Travel time (billed at 50% of total) Travel total for all Tasks Total Travel Costs GRAND TOTAL Advisor Senior Facilitator Facilitator Strategic Associate and Advisor and Advisor Advisor TOTAL Assumptions Mr. Gonzalez's time is paid for by his salary with Beyond $185.00 $160.00 $550.00 $300.00 $0.00 Conflict. $137.50 $137.50 51.202.50 51.202.50 $1.807.00 $1,807.00 $7,228.00 $7,228.00 $109,847.0 0 531.037.00 $137.50 $1.040.00 51.64-4.50 $6,578.00 $137,644.5 0 5137.50 $3,575.00 54.29950 $4,229.50 $42,179.50 5137.50 $1.950.00 $2.679.50 $2,679.50 S26.529.50 $137.50 5- 5679.50 $679.50 $679.50 $825.00 $8,970.00 $12.847.00 $28,622.50 $197,907.00 Assumes four trips for face-to-face engagement among core team (Schooler/Vint/Omar), one from advisors Kearns & West Response to Facilitator for Truth and Reconciliation Commission Page 17 Prepared by: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator, Office of Equity & Human Rights, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5022. Resolution No. 21-248 Resolution approving the preliminary operational budget for the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Whereas, the City Council established the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission on September 15, 2020; and Whereas, the Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is required to recommend to City Council a preliminary budget for funds needed to carry out the charges of the TRC beyond what existing City staff, programs, and services can provide; and Whereas, the Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission approved the attached Itemized Budget Proposal for a Facilitator at its meeting of September 2, 2021 by a vote of 7-1. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Iowa City hereby approves the Itemized Budget Proposal for the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission attached hereto. Passed and approved this 7th Attest: day of September , 2021 It was moved by Mime and upon roll call there were: City Attorney's Office - 9/07/21 and seconded by Weiner the Resolution be adopted, Ayes: Nays: Absent: x Bergus X Mims x Salih x Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner City of Iowa City Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission Itemized Budget Proposal Budget Budget Line Item Facilitate Amount Notes for Line Item(s) The listed amount is proposed for the facilitator position that the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission is tasked with $197,907.00 hiring based on the requirements provided by the City of Iowa City Council (for over a year) through their 7-1 vote to establish a "TRC" $197,907.00 Prepared by: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator, Office of Equity & Human Rights, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5022. Resolution No. Resolution approving the preliminary operational budget for the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission that runs from July of 2021 through December of 2021. Whereas, the City Council established the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission on September 15, 2020; and Whereas, the Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is required to recommend to City Council a preliminary budget for funds needed to carry out the charges of the TRC beyond what existing City staff, programs, and services can provide; and Whereas, the Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission approved the attached Itemized Budget Proposal for a Facilitator _ _ •• _ _ .. _ _ _ • e - at its meeting of July 8September 2, 2021 by a vote of 78-10. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Iowa City hereby approves the Itemized Budget Proposal for tithe Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission attached hereto Passed and approved this Attest: - e a -_ a day of , 2021 City Clerk 9/07/21 It was moved by and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Mayor Approved by -City Attorney's Office — and seconded by the Resolution be adopted, Nays: Absent: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner Prepared by: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator, Office of Equity & Human Rights, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5022. Resolutio Truth and December Resolution No. approving the preliminary operational budget for the A. oc conciliation Commission that runs from July of 2021 rough o 2021. Whereas, the City Cou cit established the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation C September15, 2020; an mmission on Whereas, the Ad Hoc Trut and Reconciliation Commission is requireo recommend to City Council a preliminary budge for funds needed to carry out the charg: of the TRC beyond what existing City staff, progr: ms, and services can provide; and Whereas, the Ad Hoc Truth and econciliation Commission ap submission at its meeting of July , 2021 by a vote of 8-0. Now, therefore, be it resolved that t e City Council of the preliminary budget for the Ad Hoc Tr th and Reconciliaf runs from July 2021 through Decembe 2021. roved this preliminary budget ty of Iowa City hereby approves the n Commission attached hereto that Passed and approved this day .f , 2021. Attest: City Clerk Ma "or Approved by City eAtt Y e — 07/22/2021 the Resolution be It was moved by and seconded b adopted, and upon roll call ther• were: Ayes: Nays: Abs: nt: Berg us Mims alih ylor Teague Tho as Wein 11, General Budget Expenses July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Totals (through December 2021) Monthly totals: Commission Stipend)$1000/person/month) $59.000 $9,000 $40,500 $9,000 $40,500 $9,000 $22,500 $9.000 $22,500 $9,000 $22,500 $9,000 $207.500 $54.000 Q Q Facilitator $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $30,000 0 Experts/Training $18,000 $18,000 $36,000 ✓ a, venising/Ootreach $3.500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $17,500 ✓ Videographerls) $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $17,500 tg Transpor ..n for (Necessary( Participants $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $2,500 Q Backpay for "pre- - .ause" Commissioners $500 per meeting - -nded $27,000 $27,000 Q Backpay for "post -TRC pause" Corn _ sioners $23,000 $23,000 General Budget Total Subcommittee Budget Outline Q $59,000 $0 $40,500 $10,000 $40.500 $30,000 $2,000 $22,500 $30.000 $2,000 $22,500 $30.000 $2,04: $ :II $30.000 $2,000 $207,500 Monthly totals (each value was multiplied by 5): $130000 Researcher Pay $8,000 Si Collaborators/Consultants $2,000 $2,000 2,000 $2,000 $8,000 ✓ Materials/Miscellaneous $1,000 $1,000 $1,004 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 51 Transportation for( Necessary( Participants $1,000 $1.000 $1,000 $1,000 $1.000 $5.000 ■ 7 $0 I=1 $0 Subconimltee Budget Total Housing, Policing, Education/Youth 6 Youth Engagement. (Multiplied by5tocover each .ubcommhu.) Healthcare, Sustainability $11 %e4 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $130,000 Item Number: 12. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution authorizing the installation of speed humps on Friendship Street, between Meadow Street and the bridge west of Upland Avenue. Prepared By: Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner Jason Havel, City Engineer Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood and Development Services Fiscal Impact: Funding for traffic calming projects is allocated from a line item in the CI P (S3816). Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Speed data and proposed locations of speed humps Correspondence Resolution Executive Summary: Residents of Friendship Street have successfully completed the City of Iowa City's Traffic Calming Program. Data collection determined that the street qualifies for the program based on traffic speeds. Staff discussed traffic calming with residents of Friendship Street at meeting held on June 29th. The consensus of residents who attended the meeting was to move forward with a request for speed humps and to survey residents of the street. On July 7th a survey was sent to residents of Friendship Street in order to measure support for the proposed speed humps. A map including the approximate location of proposed speed humps was included with the survey. In all, 60.5% of occupied residences along the designated section of Friendship St. responded to the survey. Of those households that responded, 82.6% indicated support for speed humps. Background /Analysis: In Fall of 2020 residents of Friendship Street submitted a qualifying petition to be part of the Traffic Calming Program. To qualify for the Traffic Calming Program, the 85th percentile speed of traffic must exceed the posted speed limit by 5 MPH. Traffic data was collected at two locations on Friendship Street, between Upland Avenue and Terrace Road and between Terrace Road and Meadow Street. Details of the study are provided on the attachment. Friendship Street is a collector street that receives traffic from residential streets located between Muscatine Avenue and Court Street. With a pavement width of 25 feet, it is narrower than the minimum standards both for collector streets (31 feet) and for local residential streets (26 or 28 feet). Based on its street width, on -street parking is allowed only on one side of the street (south side). Staff observed vehicles parked in the areas between Upland and 1st Avenue and near the intersection with Terrace Road. Block lengths and the frequency of intersections can also influence speed. Two streets intersect with Friendship Street along the section being considered for traffic calming, however, Upland Avenue and Terrace Street are T -intersections and do not produce enough regular traffic to calm speeds on Friendship Street. Staff reviewed the speed data and the street context with the City Engineer, Streets Department, and the Police and Fire Departments to identify appropriate ways to address the speeding issue. Edge striping, traffic circles, and bulb -outs are not feasible or appropriate on this street based on its width and the configuration of intersections. After review, staff concluded that speed humps would be the most effective means for lowering speeds. Neighborhood Process: A meeting of residents who live along this portion of Friendship Street was held on June 29th to discuss residents' perceptions of the traffic and potential options for slowing speeds. Staff presented speed and traffic count information and reviewed various options for traffic calming. Speed humps were recommended by staff as the most effective measure for lowering speeds. At the meeting, residents of Friendship Street supported speed humps and requested to move forward with a survey of residents along the street section. On July 7th a survey was mailed to residents of Friendship Street to determine if there was support for speed humps. The mailing included all residential properties with frontage on Friendship between Meadow Street and the bridge located just west of Upland Avenue. This included residents of three duplexes. In all, surveys were sent to 39 addresses: 1 mailing was returned by USPS as a vacant property; 23 households responded to the survey. That is an 60.5% response rate (23 of 38) Of those households that responded, 19 indicated support for the proposed traffic calming; 4 did not support the proposed traffic calming. That is an 82.6% approval rate (19 of 23). On August 13, staff posted signs along both sides of Friendship Street: near Meadow Street and near Upland Avenue. This is to provide notice to the larger neighborhood and an opportunity for the public to share input with City Council. Emails received from those who wish for their input to be considered are provided as an attachment. Funding for traffic calming projects is allocated from a line item in the CI P (S3816). The cost to construct a single speed hump is $3,000 based on bids received during the 2019 construction season. Staff is recommending 5 speed humps along this portion of Friendship Street in order to meet the optimal spacing necessary to encourage drivers to travel at a consistent speed of 25 MPH (300-350 feet apart). With approval from the City Council, staff will move forward with installation of speed humps as proposed. ATTACHMENTS: Description Speed data and proposed traffic calming locations Correspondence Resolution Correspondence to City Council Speed humps are not speed bumps SPEED BUMP -31' ft wide 4-6 inches high SPEED HUMP 10-12 ft wide 3-4 inches high If you would like to try driving over Modified Speed Humps, an installation is located on Glendale Rd, west of 7th Avenue. In evaluating locations for speed humps we consider distance from intersections and driveways, and locations of stormwater intakes. To be effective, speed humps should be spaced consistently approximately 300-400 feet apart. The goal in spacing speed humps is to encourage drivers to travel at a consistent speed along the length of the street. Speed humps do not interfere with on -street parking, turning movements, or access to driveways. Modified Speed Humps allow vehicles with a wide wheel base, including buses and fire trucks, to pass through with minimal slowing. Friendship Street: proposed locations Between Upland and Terrace Eastbound Average speed = 29 MPH 85th percentile= 33.86 MPH* Average daily volume: 1,322 vehicles Westbound Average speed = 29 MPH 85th percentile= 35.49 MPH* Average daily volume: 656 vehicles Between Terrace and Meadow Eastbound Average speed = 30 MPH 85th percentile= 34.75* Average daily volume: 621 vehicles Westbound Average Speed 21 MPH 85th percentile= 30.08 MPH* Average daily volume: 812 vehicles * 85th percentile speed is the speed that 85 % of vehicles are travelling at or below. Inversely, 15% of vehicles are operating above this speed. ' Approximate speed hump locations Possible speed humps locations shown above are spaced approximately 350 feet apart. The spacing is designed to encourage drivers to adopt a con- sistent speed over the course of the street. Speed humps are located to avoid driveways, intersections, and storm sewer intakes. Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi, Paula Bergstrom <paulabergstrom@hotmail.com> Saturday, August 14, 2021 8:55 AM Streets for People Speed Humps on Friendship St. I agree that there should be at least one speed hump on Friendship between Meadow and Upland St. I live on Upland Street - I wish you would put one up on this street as well. I walk my dog daily on Friendship St. and the traffic is very fast. Currently a long stretch with no stop signs means that drivers speed up. Please put speed humps on this stretch. Thank you, Paula Bergstrom 433 Upland Ave. Iowa City, IA 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Amanda McFadden <amwilson03@gmail.com> Monday, August 16, 2021 9:57 AM Streets for People Traffic calming Friendship St between Upland and Meadow I am writing in support of traffic calming speed humps on Friendship St between Upland and Meadow. People slow down at the other end of Friendship because of the humps from Court to Brookside, then speed up out of frustration it seems to "make up" for those humps and speed down the remainder of Friendship. I live on Norwood Circle, right off of Friendship. I would like to also propose you complete speed humps all the way from Meadow to Brookside. Why leave the middle portion unaltered? I think it will result in high speeds within that portion, which we walk as pedestrians every day with small children. In the short term, especially with the detour forcing more traffic onto Court, we have already seen increased traffic on Friendship. These humps can't come soon enough, and will help make the "streets for people" that our highly active pedestrian, child, and bike friendly neighborhood desires. Sincerely, Amanda McFadden 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello - T S <starhawk25@msn.com> Monday, August 16, 2021 3:40 PM Sarah Walz Traffic Calming Friendship Street Thanks for the letter. I would like to address a comment to City Council regarding the vote on this matter. I am in favor of traffic calming because sometimes I don't even feel safe on my own street. Some people speed so fast it is frightening. Something needs to slow them down. Children and elderly live on the street. It doesn't feel like a neighborhood street like it once did. And it is a neighborhood street - lots of neighbors know each other and like to visit. Friendship isn't meant to be a major thoroughfare but sometimes it feels like it is. People use it as a cut through so they can avoid the intersection at Court and First Street. Odd as it sounds it can be very stressful to be out front and see people speed at what seems like at least in the 40's if not higher speeds. People have passed me on the left when I've had my blinker on to turn left into my own driveway. Last week I watched a car drive up on someone's lawn in the 2400 block to avoid striking another car. I've talked to others on the street who have had sideview mirrors taken off by drivers. It is a narrow street with parking on one side. I hope you vote to approve a traffic calming devise. Thank you Theresa Seeberger 2419 Friendship Street Iowa City, Iowa 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: scotty hayward <scottyhayward@msn.com> Tuesday, August 24, 2021 8:00 AM Streets for People speed bumps on friendship st. Hi - I saw signs about installing speed bumps on Friendship east of 1st Ave. We sure could use one on the corner of 3rd Ave. and Friendship, where we live. Cars often race through the stop sign, and go by at excessive speeds. Thanks for helping. - Scotty Hayward, 2020 Friendship St. 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Katie Broton <katiebroton@gmail.com> Saturday, September 4, 2021 9:16 PM Streets for People Speed humps on Friendship St. Late Handouts Distributed (Date) As a resident of Friendship St., I support the proposal to add speed humps or other traffic calming efforts. Thank you! Katie 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Ginny Paulson <ginnypaulson@hotmail.com> Monday, September 6, 2021 8:25 PM Streets for People Fwd: Friendship Street speed bumps Resending to correct address ( see below) Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Ginny Paulson <ginnypaulson@hotmail.com> Date: September 6, 2021 at 7:58:18 PM CDT To: streetsforpeople@iowa-city.gov Subject: Friendship Street speed bumps Late Handouts Distributed (Date) We are writing in support of more speed bumps on Friendship street between upland and meadow. With the number of cars parked on the street and the speed at which people drive, it makes sense. We live on 2816 Brookside Drive, off meadow street, and we can hear speeding traffic at all hours. We also use Friendship street to leave our neighborhood. Speed bumps would enhance safety and serenity for our neighborhood. Maybe they would also discourage impatient people from using Friendship street as a thoroughfare. It wasn't designed for that purpose. Ginny Paulson and Dan Phillips Sent from my iPhone Kellie Fruehling From: Paul Show <pfshow@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:53 AM To: *City Council Subject: Friendship Street traffic calming. City Council, My name is Paul Show, I live at 2806 Eastwood Dr., 0.16 miles from Meadow and Friendship. I have spoken with Sarah Walz and understand the process by which a speed hump vote tonight has come to be. I urge you to vote against implementing speed humps on that section of Friendship Street. I have lived at my current address on Eastwood Dr., for 38 years. I have used Friendship Street for both biking and driving my car many many times over that time. I have never encountered a problem or felt unsafe either driving or biking on this section of street. People on Friendship Street voluntarily bought a house on a street that acts as a collector street. Obviously, streets like this will have more traffic than side streets. For them now, to come forward and request traffic calming seems ridiculous. The street has been there for many decades and has functioned just fine without speed humps. I realize the study the City conducted does show that some people speed on that street, but it also shows that the overwhelming majority obey the speed limit. I asked Sarah how many traffic fatalities have occurred over the years on the section of Friendship Street in question. Either pedestrian, cycling or vehicle. The answer, was none. This is a safe street to drive on and bike on. This seems to be a desire residents to mark their territory and reduce traffic rather than a specific safety concern. .Most often traffic is the motivation for speed humps and safety is spoken excuse for speed humps. Again, they chose to buy a home on a busy street. The study the city conducts, sets the bar so high that any street in the city would probably fail the test. No one asked, for my input on a street that I live very close to and frequently use for both biking and driving. If you want to conduct a survey, why not do it within a minimum of a half mile radius of this entire area. That would give area residents that use the street a chance to have input into what occurs on that section of street. By adding speed humps, you add to pollution and noise, vehicle's must slow and then speed up instead of driving at a steady rate. This causes pollution. Studies have shown, that speed humps slow first responders response time. As a person that is under the care of two cardiologists at the Mercy Hospital, Iowa Heart Center, I feel I have a legitimate concern that critical care could be slowed in getting to me by unneeded speed humps. Even minor delays in emergency vehicle response time is far more detrimental to public health and safety they can be offset by any perceived reduction in speeding. I feel I have given several legitimate reasons for you to vote against implementing speed humps on this section of Friendship Street. Please, do the common sense thing and vote against decreasing public safety and adding to pollution. Thank you for your time. Late Handouts Distributed (Date) Sent from my iPhone This email is from an external source. 1 Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356- 5239 Resolution no. 21-249 Resolution authorizing the installation of speed humps on Friendship Street between Meadow Street and the bridge west of Upland Avenue. Whereas, the City Council has established a traffic calming program for the City of Iowa City for the purpose of considering neighborhood traffic calming projects; and Whereas, the residents of Friendship Street have successfully completed the traffic calming process according to the City Council's approved procedure; and Whereas, a neighborhood survey has been conducted in accordance with the approved traffic calming program and an 82.6% majority of respondents who responded to the survey indicated they are in favor of speed humps; Whereas, the City Council finds said proposal to be in the public interest and is consistent with its adopted traffic calming program. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The proposal for speed humps on Friendship Street is hereby approved. 2. City staff is directed to proceed with the installation of speed humps on Friendship Street, between Meadow Street and the bridge west of Upland Avenue Passed and approved this 7th day of September , 20 21 Attest: i KellitFrue ling, City Clerk uc: Teague, Mayor Approved b City Att•rney's Office (Sara Greenwood-Hektoen — 9/1/2021) Resolution No. 21-249_ Page 2 It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Bergus Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bergus x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Weiner the Sarah Walz From: Joyce Ruplinger <jrupling@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 10:41 PM To: Sarah Walz Subject: Traffic Calming request for Friendship Street To Members of the Iowa City Council Board Meeting to be held September 7, 2021 Regarding Traffic Calming request on Friendship Street We have strong concerns against the installation of traffic calming on Friendship Street between Upland Avenue and Meadow Street. The survey request letter we received indicated the installation would "minimally" slow emergency vehicles. The survey data included was focused on speed data. I ask that you please consider the number of emergency vehicles that travel this section of Friendship Street on a regular basis. My 88 year old mother lives just off Meadow Street, along with a number of households with elderly residents in this area and any slowing of emergency vehicles has the potential of a loss of life for any family in or beyond this stretch of Friendship Street. We understand there are speed and stop sign violators on Friendship Street as well as Upland Avenue that we witness on a regular basis. Would it make more sense to have Police patrol this area regularly? From a fiscal perspective we feel this would make more sense. The City would not have to spend funds for installation and maintenance of speed humps and the funds received from moving violations could be used for general street repairs, which are much needed in our neighborhood and many other areas of our city. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Frank and Joyce Ruplinger 512 Upland Avenue This email is from an external source. 1 Item Number: 13. , CITY OF IOWA CITY ,!47 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution authorizing the installation of speed humps on Duck Creek Drive between Duck Creek Place and the trail at Hunter's Run Park. Prepared By: Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner Jason Havel, City Engineer Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood and Development Services Fiscal Impact: Funding for traffic calming projects is allocated from a line item in the CIP (S3816) Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Speed data and proposed traffic calming locations Correspondence Resolution Executive Summary: Residents of Duck Creek Drive have successfully completed the City of Iowa City's Traffic Calming Program. Data collection determined that the street qualifies for the program based on traffic speeds. Staff discussed traffic calming with residents of Duck Creek Drive at meeting held on June 24th. The consensus of residents who attended the meeting was to move forward with a request for speed humps and to survey residents of the street. On July 7th a survey was sent to residents of Duck Creek Drive in order to measure support for the proposed speed humps. A map including the approximate location of proposed speed humps was included with the survey. In all, 79.3% of occupied residences along this portion of Duck Creek Drive responded to the survey. Of those households that responded, 73.9% indicated support for speed humps. Background /Analysis: In Spring of 2021 residents of Duck Creek Drive submitted a qualifying petition to be part of the Traffic Calming Program. To qualify for the Traffic Calming Program, the 85th percentile speed of traffic must exceed the posted speed limit by 5 MPH. Traffic data was collected at two locations on Duck Creek Drive: between Duck Creek Place and the trail at Hunter's Run Park. Details of the study are provided on the attachment. Duck Creek Drive has a pavement width of 31 feet, which meets the minimum standard for a collector street. Based on its street width, on -street parking is allowed along both sides of the street. Vehicles were observed parking in the area near the curve in the road and along the park frontage. Block lengths and the frequency of intersections can influence speed. Block lengths along Duck Creek are quite long (over 1,400 feet between Duck Creek Place and Deerfield Drive) and exceed Iowa City's current subdivision standards for residential streets, which are 300- 600 feet. Staff reviewed the speed data and the street context with the City Engineer, Streets Department, and the Police and Fire Departments to consider appropriate ways to address the speeding issue. After review, staff concluded that speed humps would be the most safe and effective means for lowering speeds. Neighborhood Process: A meeting of residents who live along this portion of Friendship Street was held on June 24th to discuss residents' perceptions of the traffic and potential options for slowing speeds. Staff presented speed and traffic count information and reviewed various options for traffic calming. Speed humps were recommended by staff as the most effective measure for lowering speeds. At the meeting, residents of Duck Creek Drive supported speed humps and requested to move forward with a survey. On July 7th a survey was sent to residents of Duck Creek Drive to determine if there was support for speed humps. The mailing included all residential properties with frontage between Duck Creek Place and the trail at Hunter's Run Park. In all, surveys were sent to 29 addresses; 23 households responded to the survey. That is an 79.3% response rate (23 of 29) Of those households that responded, 17 indicated support for the proposed traffic calming; 6 did not support the proposed traffic calming. That is an 73.9% approval rate (17 of 23). On August 16, staff posted signs along both sides of Duck Creek Drive. This is to provide notice to the larger neighborhood and an opportunity for the public to share input with City Council. Email responses from members of the public who wished to provide input are attached. Funding for traffic calming projects is allocated from a line item in the CI P (S3816). The cost to construct a single speed hump is $3,000 based on bids received during the 2019 construction season. Staff is recommending 6 speed humps along this portion of Duck Creek Drive in order to meet the optimal spacing necessary to encourage drivers to travel at a consistent speed of 25 MPH (300-350 feet apart). With approval from the City Council, staff will move forward with installation of speed humps as proposed. ATTACHMENTS: Description Speed data and proposed traffic calming locations Correspondence Resolution Correspondence to City Council Speed humps are not speed bumps SPEED BUMP -3f ft wide 4-6 inches high Dl SPEED HUMP 10-12 ft wide 3-4 inches high If you would like to try driving over Modified Speed Humps, an installation is located on Glendale Rd, west of 7th Avenue. In evaluating locations for speed humps we consider distance from intersections and driveways, and locations of stormwater intakes. To be effective, speed humps should be spaced consistently approximately 300-400 feet apart. The goal in spacing speed humps is to encourage drivers to travel at a consistent speed along the length of the street. Speed humps do not interfere with on—street parking, turning movements, or access to driveways. .w Lu Modified Speed Humps allow vehicles -410 with a wide wheel base, including buses and fire trucks, to pass through with minimal slowing. Duck Creek Drive: proposed locations ‘111"1"1"7110 "11111W lltsk n Along Hunter's Run Park Southbound Average speed = 29MPH 85th percentile= 34.22MPH* Average daily traffic = 328 vehicles Northbound Average Speed 29 MPH 85th percentile= 34.29 MPH* Average daily traffic = 324 vehicles Between Duck Creek Place and Hunter's Run Park Southbound Average speed = 32 MPH 85th percentile= 37.13 MPH* Average daily traffic = 267 vehicles Northbound Average Speed 35 MPH 85th percentile= 48.46 MPH* Average daily traffic = 590 vehicles *85th percentile speed is the speed that 85% of vehicles are travelling at or under. Inversely, 15% of vehicles are traveling above this speed. 3 Creek.PI- RO retry Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: N B <faith220@msn.com> Monday, August 23, 2021 9:11 AM Sara-walz@iowa-city.org Streets for People Duck Creek Drive Speed Bumps We are residents of Duck Creek Drive and are totally opposed to the installation of speed bumps on our street. When we attended the initial meeting about this issue, most of the concern was based on children crossing the street near Hunter's Run Park. We would suggest installing speed bumps JUST near the park to mitigate that issue and not install them throughout the entire area. On the letter that was initially sent to us, there was a map showing the approximate locations of the bumps. If you do decide to go ahead and install the bumps for the entire length of Duck Creek Drive, we respectfully ask you NOT to install any bumps near 1222 (1232 was one shown on the map). We already feel & hear the traffic from HWY 218 behind our home and placing a bump near our home would cause even more unwanted noise & vibrations, impacting our health & well-being even more. Thank you for considering our suggestions. Richard & Nancy Bohrn 1222 Duck Creek Dr Iowa City, IA 52246 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: N B <faith220@msn.com> Monday, August 23, 2021 10:17 AM Sarah Walz Speed Bumps on Duck Creek Dr We are residents of Duck Creek Drive and are totally opposed to the installation of speed bumps on our street. When we attended the initial meeting about this issue, most of the concern was based on children crossing the street near Hunter's Run Park. We would suggest installing speed bumps JUST near the park to mitigate that issue and not install them throughout the entire area. On the letter that was initially sent to us, there was a map showing the approximate locations of the bumps. If you do decide to go ahead and install the bumps for the entire length of Duck Creek Drive, we respectfully ask you NOT to install any bumps near 1222 (1232 was one shown on the map). We already feel & hear the traffic from HWY 218 behind our home and placing a bump near our home would cause even more unwanted noise & vibrations, impacting our health & well-being even more. Thank you for considering our suggestions. Richard & Nancy Bohrn 1222 Duck Creek Dr Iowa City, IA 52246 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sarah Thanks for your email. karen nelson <karennelsonphd15@gmail.com> Thursday, August 26, 2021 11:02 AM Sarah Walz Janice Weiner; karen nelson Re: Traffic calming on Duck Creek Drive I actually do reside on Duck Creek Drive so speed humps will impact me. My home (948) is next to the home of neighbors invited to a discussion at Hunters Run Park. I wasn't informed so could not attend the meeting. I am unhappy that Duck Creek home owners from my home to the corner of Wild Prairie and residents of Partridge, Wolfram and Larkspur cul de sacs were not notified about the meeting. I appreciate the 2 signs placed on Duck Creek. This is how I learned of the scheduled vote to approve humps To clarify your email meaning, am I correct that since humps are requested, there is no process to overturn or reconsider? In other words, the scheduled Council vote is pro forma? Are you saying that I am wasting my time to ask for participation or debate in this decision? I will email the Council to request the vote be postponed from 9/7 agenda. Thanks again for your earlier reply. I look forward to hearing from you again Karen Nelson Rietz On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:30 AM Sarah Walz <Sarah-Walz@iowa-city.org> wrote: Karen, Your email was forwarded to me regarding the traffic calming request on Duck Creek Drive. While the City will not consider applying traffic calming without a petition from residents of properties directly along the portion of the street where it is sought, there is no petition process for residents to overturn that request. The reason for this is that those residents who do not live on the designated street section and experiencing the speeding— at least not to the same extent. 1 The City Council has complete discretion in whether they apply traffic calming or not. Anyone who is opposed may send me an email to me and I will forward it to the City Council so that they can consider the input prior to their meeting on September 7. All traffic calming requests are reviewed by the City Engineer, City Streets Dept, Fire and Police. Speed humps do not significantly affect the clearing of roads by snow plow or emergency response. The speed humps proposed for Duck Creek Drive are designed to allow large -axle vehicles such as fire trucks, snow plows, and buses to pass over them with minimal slowing or jostling. To be clear these are not the sort of speed bumps you would find in a mall parking lot or parking garage, which require you to slow. to 5 MPH to pass over them. These speed humps accommodate speeds of 20 MPH. That said, I understand that some people do not like them. I can forward your email (below) to Council if you would like me to. Sarah Sarah Walz Associate Transportation Planner City of Iowa City / Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 319-356-5239 Sarah-walz@iowa-citv.org Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is Intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this Information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 2 Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Nikki Weinkauf <nikkirose87@gmail.com> Thursday, September 2, 2021 4:44 PM *City Council Duck creek speed bumps Late Handouts Distributed -,x--21 (Date) I am writing to request you vote not to install speed humps on Duck Creek Drive in Iowa City or delay the vote until you can get feedback from all those who would be affected by the humps. I am a neighborhood resident and am nit in favor of these speed bumps. This is a costly and unnecessary initiative. Nicole Weinkauf -i3 Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Good afternoon, Sara Penn <spenn28@hotmail.com> Thursday, September 2, 2021 5:15 PM *City Council Speed Humps on Duck Creek Late Handouts Distributed R -3-i1 (Date) My name is Sara Penn and my family and I live in the neighborhood where you are planning to install the speed humps on Duck Creek. I've heard there may be some neighbors petitioning against this installation. However, I just wanted to let you know that we are fully in favor of adding the speed humps. We live on Foxana Drive and use Hunters Run Park frequently. We have younger children and I am always worried about them crossing that street to get to the park, as cars tend to speed by, and it's a bit of a blind spot because of the hill, curve in the road, and trees. I know there are several other families with small children that live in the area and utilize the park as well. We hope you do follow through with the installation for these reasons. Thank you for your consideration. Sc rct' Pe w t/ "Do not be anxious of anything but in everything, by prayer and petition, present your requests to God. And the peace of God which transcends all understanding will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4: 6-7) 1 Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Tiffany Olson <tiffanyrolson@gmail.com> Thursday, September 2, 2021 10:34 PM *City Council Objection to Duck Creek Speed Hump Installation Late Handouts Distributed -3-2-I (Date) My family lives on Pheasant Valley St which connects to Duck Creek Drive in Iowa City. We have seen the posted signs about a vote for potential speed hump installation on Duck Creek Drive. We oppose speed hump installation on Duck Creek. We drive on speed humps pretty much every day on Shannon Drive and feel that the negative aspects of speed humps (hard on vehicles including city vehicles, hard on the roads, reduce property values, etc) far outweigh any kind of benefits. We use this road frequently to access Hunter's Run park and feel it is very safe to walk/bike/drive along and for our 5 kids to cross the street to access the park. I can think of many other areas (Melrose Ave and Dublin Drive as one example) where city funds should be directed to help alleviate traffic concerns. Duck Creek Drive is not a concern. Thank you, Mark and Tiffany Olson 1122 Pheasant Valley St Iowa City, IA 52246 1 13 Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jian Huang <jianhjian2@gmail.com> Friday, September 3, 2021 7:52 AM Janice Weiner *City Council; Sheen Liu Re: Speed bump installation in Duck Creek Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246 Late Handouts Distributed Dear Janice and Iowa City Council members, (Date) We write to express our opposition to the installation of speed bumps on Duck Creek Avenue in Iowa City. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jian Huang and Sheen Liu 924 Duck Creek Dr, Iowa City, IA 52246 On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:41 AM Janice Weiner <Janice-Weiner@iowa-city.org> wrote: Thank you for letting me know. Janice Weiner No correspondence (including emails) to City Council is confidential. All correspondence (including emails) to me as a City Council member about City issues is a public record. From: Jian Huang <iianhiian2@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 8:25:59 PM To: *City Council Subject: Speed bump installation in Duck Creek Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246 Dear Iowa City Council Members, We would like to request a postponement of the vote on Speed Bump Installation in Duck Creek Drive, Iowa City. Thank you for your consideration. Jian Huang and Sheen Liu 924 Duck Creek Dr, Iowa City, IA 52246 1 Kellie Fruehling From: Tracy Vest <tvest711 @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 10:29 AM To: *City Council Subject: Speed humps on Duck Creek Dr. City Council, Late Handouts Distributed q-3-21 (Date) I am writing with regard to the proposed installation of speed humps on Duck Creek Drive. I have spoken to several neighbors that use Duck Creek and they are all against the installation of speed humps. I called several weeks ago and spoke with one your employees about the proposal. First, the very small signs that were posted along the road were difficult to read. If I hadn't stopped to see what they said I would not have know about this. An email or letter to all the residents of this subdivision should have been notified. I live on Larkspur Court and use Duck Creek daily for my commute. The mobil radar unit that was set up was at the bottom of a hill. If the cameras was set heading south midway up Duck Creek there would have been no change in the speed. I don't believe the data that was collected represents a good picture of the traffic on the street. The problem with speed humps: - damage to vehicle suspensions, breaks and general maintenance expense - the cost to the city to install and uninstall the speed humps, waste of taxpayers dollars - loss of property value to houses in the area - slow response of emergency vehicles The alternative is radar flashing speed signs, similar to University Heights right by Finkbine Golf Course. This appears to be a better alternative to the speed humps, in making drivers aware of their speed. I request you vote no for Speed Humps on Duck Creek or delay your vote until you get full feedback from all the neighbors in our subdivision during you Sept. 7 meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Tracy Vest 70 Larkspur Ct. This email is from an external source. 1 Kellie Fruehling From: Marvin Reiland <mmreiland@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 11:25 AM To: *City Council Subject: Duck Creek Speed Humps To Iowa City Council Members: Late Handouts Distributed q--ZI (Date) I'm writing to strongly oppose installing speed humps on Duck Creek Drive. I have lived on Duck Creek Drive for 29 years and do not recall seeing any traffic accidents or excessive speeding on the street during that time. In my opinion, Duck Creek is not known for high traffic volume and most of the traffic is from the people who live in the neighborhood. Speed humps over time cause damage to vehicles suspension and drive trains and create a hazard for drivers with the repeated acceleration and deceleration needed to navigate the humps, and or trying to miss part of the hump. Seems to me that the humps would be a problem for snow removal equipment in winter as well. The cost of installing speed humps on Duck Creek Drive is money that could be better spent addressing high traffic areas or on improving the quality of streets in Iowa City. I strongly urge you to vote against the installation of speed humps on Duck Creek Drive when it comes to the Council for a vote. Thank you Mary Reiland 940 Duck Creek Dr. 319-530-9328 Sent from my iPad This email is from an external source. 1 Ashley Platz From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Penn <pat_penn@hotmail.com> Friday, September 3, 2021 1:25 PM *City Council speed humps Late Handouts Distribul -5- 2( (Date) I am in favor of adding speed humps on Duck Creek Dr. It is perilous for anyone with trouble seeing or walking to get across the street to the park. Please vote yes to add speed humps. Pat Penn Hunters Run Som Mail for Windows I3 Kellie Fruehling From: karennelsonphd15@gmail.com Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 9:58 AM To: Sarah Walz; *City Council Cc: karennelsonphd15@gmail.com q - 7- Z Subject: RE: request to delay 9/7 vote on speed humps Duck Creek urive (Date) Thank you for providing the information about reported MVAs on Duck Creek Drive since 2015. Re your email statement "Please know that the Traffic Calming Program is not intended to address an area with safety/collision issues" Wow, now I am extremely confused. If speed humps are intended to address safety issues, please clarify their purpose. Please also elaborate on the incremental solutions that have been attempted prior to the permanent measure. Leaders from Johnson County emergency services will say that speed humps of any type delay response times. As I said in a previous email, even if your office and the Council do not support my preferred outcome (no speed humps until other solutions are attempted), I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this lively local process. Again, I ask for a delay in Council's scheduled 9/7/21 vote. Respectfully, Karen Nelson Rietz From: Sarah Walz <Sara h-Wa lz@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 10:59 AM To: 'karen nelson' <karennelsonphd15@gmail.com> Subject: RE: request to delay 9/7 vote on speed humps Duck Creek Drive Karen, Please know that the Traffic Calming Program is not intended to address an area with safety/collision issues. That said, from what I can tell, since 2015 there have been three collisions along that portion of Duck Creek Drive involving 6 vehicles. None of the collisions resulted in injury. Here are the locations: The answer to your question regarding the speed. Depending on people's comfort level and car, you can certainly pass over the speed humps at 25 MPH and there will likely be drivers who go faster. I think 20 MPH is what most people feel comfortable going. We would not change the speed limit sings because the speed limit is just that—a limit. It is not a requirement that you drive at least 25 MPH. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have anything else for me to pass along to City Council. I will forwarding everything I have to the City Clerk before noon so that council members can review letters at the time they read their packet. Anything received after 12 PM will be distributed as a late hand-out. Sarah From: karen nelson <karennelsonphd15@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 10:09 AM To: Sarah Walz <5arah-Walz@iowa-city.org> Subject: Fwd: request to delay 9/7 vote on speed humps Duck Creek Drive Sarah, I am forwarding the email that I sent to IC Council members requesting a delay on vote for speed humps on Duck Creek Drive. I called the Iowa City Police to request information about reported motor vehicle accidents and speeding citations on Duck Creek over a 5 or 10 year period. I was told that your office could provide me with that information. I was also told I could purchase access to it. I haven't heard back from ICPD records department but I am willing to pay to access this information. A question re: your earlier explanation about the type of speed humps planned for my street. You said the humps could be traversed at 20 mph and were less intense that humps found in mall parking lots. If the posted speed on a street is 25 mph, and humps intended purpose is to lower motorists' speed to 20 mph, then the effect is to lower the speed limit from what is posted on that portion of Duck Creek. Will the city be posting new signs to indicate speed of 20 mph if the humps are installed? 2 If yes, then the city needs to post new mph signage on any street where speed humps are installed. Shannon Drive in IC is close to my home but the traffic cooling section of the city website indicates multiple other locations for humps. Terry Robinson, former IC Parks Superintendent said that fire officials will say that speed hump installation does slow response time. Period. I'm asking for a meeting that includes residents on the rest of Duck Creek Drive before this scheduled 9/7 vote. thanks for your time. Karen Nelson 948 Duck Creek Drive Iowa City 319-330-3615 Forwarded message From: <ka ren nelsonphd15@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:51 PM Subject: request to delay 9/7 vote on speed humps Duck Creek Drive To: <council@iowa-citv.org> Cc: <karennelsonphd15@gmail.com> Council Representatives: I request that the council delay the scheduled 9/7/21 vote to approve installation of speed humps on Duck Creek Drive. I reside at 948 Duck Creek Drive. Only a subset of residents of Duck Creek Drive were invited to a meeting at Hunter's Run park to discuss the "traffic cooling" initiative. Residents of homes northwest of Hunters Run Park (13 homes), residents of the 12 homes on Partridge, Larkspur, Wolfrum cul de sacs (12 homes) were not invited to attend. If installed, speed humps would impact those of us who travel the entire length of the proposed installation area. Residents of Deerfield (parallel to Duck Creek) were not included. If humps are installed on Duck Creek Drive, motorists may opt to use Deerfield to avoid the Duck Creek humps. So I believe they are important stakeholders in this decision. I respectfully ask that the vote be delayed until the remaining residents of Duck Creek Drive can be educated and included in the process. 3 To be transparent, I do not want speed humps on Duck Creek. I am collecting signatures of neighbors who are not in favor of speed humps on Duck Creek. Please be aware that the temporary speed indicator sign was not placed where the humps are proposed. I have requested but not yet received 5-10 years of reported MVAs and speeding citations on Duck Creek Drive. I've owned my home at 948 Duck Creek since May 1999 and the only accidents I am aware of have been related to icy/snow and cars parked on the street. Speed humps are an attempt to solve a problem. I argue that incremental measures are warranted before speed humps. Thanks for consideration. Karen Nelson 948 Duck Creek Drive Iowa City 319-330-3615 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 4 )3 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: karennelsonphd15@gmail.com Sunday, September 5, 2021 9:45 AM Late Handouts Distributed Janice Weiner; Sarah Walz karennelsonphd15@gmail.com RE: request to delay 9/7 vote on speed humps Duck Creek Drive _ _ 2_1 Thanks for your consideration Janice. (Date) The lively process of local decision making is important. I recognize the Council may not support my preferred outcome. The opportunity to participate in the process is meaningful. From: Janice Weiner <Janice-Weiner@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 10:45 AM To: karennelsonphd15@gmail.com Subject: Re: request to delay 9/7 vote on speed humps Duck Creek Drive Thank you for writing. We have received a number of emails on this topic and I went over to check it out about 10 days ago. Normally the neighbor meetings on speed humps involve only those on the actual street (might be something we need to take a new look at, to be honest). I appreciate your feedback and will do my best. Janice Weiner No correspondence (including emails) to City Council is confidential. All correspondence (including emails) to me as a City Council member about City issues is a public record. From: karennelsonphd15@gmail.com <karennelsonphd15@Rmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 11:52:02 PM To: *City Council Cc: karennelsonphd15@gmail.com Subject: request to delay 9/7 vote on speed humps Duck Creek Drive Council Representatives: 1 I request that the council delay the scheduled 9/7/21 vote to approve installation of speed humps on Duck Creek Drive. I reside at 948 Duck Creek Drive. Only a subset of residents of Duck Creek Drive were invited to a meeting at Hunter's Run park to discuss the "traffic cooling" initiative. Residents of homes northwest of Hunters Run Park (13 homes), residents of the 12 homes on Partridge, Larkspur, Wolfrum cul de sacs (12 homes) were not invited to attend. If installed, speed humps would impact those of us who travel the entire length of the proposed installation area. Residents of Deerfield (parallel to Duck Creek) were not included. If humps are installed on Duck Creek Drive, motorists may opt to use Deerfield to avoid the Duck Creek humps. So I believe they are important stakeholders in this decision. I respectfully ask that the vote be delayed until the remaining residents of Duck Creek Drive can be educated and included in the process. To be transparent, I do not want speed humps on Duck Creek. I am collecting signatures of neighbors who are not in favor of speed humps on Duck Creek. Please be aware that the temporary speed indicator sign was not placed where the humps are proposed. I have requested but not yet received 5-10 years of reported MVAs and speeding citations on Duck Creek Drive. I've owned my home at 948 Duck Creek since May 1999 and the only accidents I am aware of have been related to icy/snow and cars parked on the street. Speed humps are an attempt to solve a problem. I argue that incremental measures are warranted before speed humps. Thanks for consideration. Karen Nelson 948 Duck Creek Drive Iowa City 319-330-3615 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 2 Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Gene Chrischilles <tgenec@gmail.com> Monday, September 6, 2021 7:27 PM *City Council Speed bumps on Duck Creek Drive Late Handouts Distributed —7-'2-1 (Date) As a resident living on Deerfield Drive, I am in favor of the installation of speed bumps on Duck Creek Drive. If it is going to be done, why not continue up the hill to the west on Duck Creek? Otherwise, drivers going west will immediately speed up after the last bump by Hunters Run Park. If the goal is a safer street, go all the way. 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council Member, Jeremy Penn <jeremy_penn@hotmail.com> Friday, September 3, 2021 12:51 PM Streets for People Duck creek speed humps Jeremy Penn, 3627 Foxana Dr, Iowa City L 9-7- z( (Date) I am writing to you today in strong support of the installation of speed humps on Duck Creek Dr. I live just a few blocks from the area where the speed humps would be installed and use this area regularly, particularly Hunter's Run Park. Vehicle speed is a critical factor in whether a crash will occur and in the severity of the damage caused by a crash. According to a federal report (Tefft, 2011: Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or Death, https://aaafoundation.orp/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-iniury-death/), the risk of death for a collision at 23 MPH is only 25%, but at 39 MPH this risk is 75%. Reducing vehicle speed is therefore a critical step in keeping street crossings safe for pedestrians. We regularly make use of Hunter's Run Park and have noticed a high rate of speed of many vehicles on Duck Creek Dr. This can make crossing Duck Creek drive to access Hunter's Run Park from our home treacherous, as even though there are relatively few cars on Duck Creek, those that we do observe are often going quite fast, presenting a significant danger to pedestrians. This is particularly a concern in the winter when we spend time sledding on Hunter's Run Park's hill, which begins at the sidewalk immediately adjacent to Duck Creek Dr. In the winter, the piles of snow from the snowplow decrease visibility for pedestrians and drivers and slippery sidewalks and roads increase the chance of a collision. Children have a right to enjoy recreation and a right to engage in safe, outdoor play. These activities are good for their health and have been one of the few ways to get out of the house during the pandemic. But the high rate of vehicle speed on Duck Creek Dr. is dangerous to children trying to get access to the park and requires an adult be present to assist them in crossing the street. This means that children are not able to access their right to recreation when an adult is not available to walk them across the street. I am asking you to please vote to support our children's right to safe recreation and health by voting in favor of adding speed humps to Duck Creek Drive. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeremy Penn 3627 Foxana Dr Iowa City 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Sarah, Wes Marling <wes.marling@gmail.com> Monday, September 6, 2021 10:28 PM Late Handouts Distributed Sarah Walz Duck Creek Dr Traffic Calming- Comment for City Council (Date) Thank you for your time and help throughout this process. I thought the neighborhood meeting was especially beneficial for informing the affected residents and providing opportunity for constructive conversation. We reached out to your office to initiate this process for our street after observing many incidents of vehicles traveling at high speeds. When gathering petition signatures, many of our neighbors were in enthusiastic support of speed humps. Many made comments that our road is extremely unsafe, especially for children. They also thanked us for starting the process for traffic calming. I would also like to highlight the data collected from the traffic study on our street. With an average of 590 vehicles traveling northbound daily, speeds in the top 15% exceeded 48 mph. This indicates that roughly 88 vehicles per day are traveling at nearly double the speed limit in a residential area. These results confirmed the concerns of many who believe that the current traffic condition poses a danger. We appreciate the City Planning Office's timeliness and expertise in their efforts to make our street safer. We are in favor of speed humps as a traffic calming measure and look forward to it passing without delay. This is because we believe it will make our street safer for the children who live on it, including our own. Thanks again, Weston and Amy Marling 1 Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356- 5239 Resolution no. 21-250 Resolution authorizing the installation of speed humps on Duck Creek Drive between Duck Creek Place and the trail at Hunter's Run Park Whereas, the City Council has established a traffic calming program for the City of Iowa City for the purpose of considering neighborhood traffic calming projects; and Whereas, the residents of Duck Creek Drive have successfully completed the traffic calming process according to the City Council's approved procedure; and Whereas, a neighborhood survey has been conducted in accordance with the approved traffic calming program and an 73.9% majority of respondents who responded to the survey indicated they are in favor of speed humps; Whereas, the City Council finds said proposal to be in the public interest and is consistent with its adopted traffic calming program. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The proposal for speed humps on Duck Creek Drive is hereby approved. 2. City staff is directed to proceed with the installation of speed humps on Duck Creek Drive, between Duck Creek Place and the trail at Hunter's Run Park. Passed and approved this 7th day of September , 2021 Attest: Bryfce Teague, Mayor U (( Approved by KellieFrue ling, City Clerk City Attorney's Office (Sara Greenwood-Hektoen — 9/1/2021) Resolution No. 21-250 Page 2 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Mims the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Berges Mims Salih X Taylor Teague X Thomas X Weiner Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Jian Huang <jianhjian2@gmail.com> Monday, August 30, 2021 8:26 PM *City Council Speed bump installation in Duck Creek Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246 Dear Iowa City Council Members, We would like to request a postponement of the vote on Speed Bump Installation in Duck Creek Drive, Iowa City. Thank you for your consideration. Jian Huang and Sheen Liu 924 Duck Creek Dr, Iowa City, IA 52246 1 Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Council Representatives: karennelsonphd15@gmail.com Monday, August 30, 2021 11:52 PM *City Council karennelsonphd15@gnnail.com request to delay 9/7 vote on speed humps Duck Creek Drive I request that the council delay the scheduled 9/7/21 vote to approve installation of speed humps on Duck Creek Drive. I reside at 948 Duck Creek Drive. Only a subset of residents of Duck Creek Drive were invited to a meeting at Hunter's Run park to discuss the "traffic cooling" initiative. Residents of homes northwest of Hunters Run Park (13 homes), residents of the 12 homes on Partridge, Larkspur, Wolfrum cul de sacs (12 homes) were not invited to attend. If installed, speed humps would impact those of us who travel the entire length of the proposed installation area. Residents of Deerfield (parallel to Duck Creek) were not included. If humps are installed on Duck Creek Drive, motorists may opt to use Deerfield to avoid the Duck Creek humps. So I believe they are important stakeholders in this decision. I respectfully ask that the vote be delayed until the remaining residents of Duck Creek Drive can be educated and included in the process. To be transparent, I do not want speed humps on Duck Creek. I am collecting signatures of neighbors who are not in favor of speed humps on Duck Creek. Please be aware that the temporary speed indicator sign was not placed where the humps are proposed. I have requested but not yet received 5-10 years of reported MVAs and speeding citations on Duck Creek Drive. I've owned my home at 948 Duck Creek since May 1999 and the only accidents I am aware of have been related to icy/snow and cars parked on the street. Speed humps are an attempt to solve a problem. I argue that incremental measures are warranted before speed humps. Thanks for consideration. Karen Nelson 948 Duck Creek Drive Iowa City 319-330-3615 1 Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Thomas Rietz <thomasarietz@gmail.com> Tuesday, August 31, 2021 9:46 AM *City Council Speed Humps on Duck Creek Drive I am writing to request you vote not to speed humps on Duck Creek Drive in Iowa City or delay the vote until you can get feedback from all those who would be affected by the humps. We request a delay because, as residents on Duck Creek Drive, many of us were deliberately not made aware of the public feedback meeting and deliberately not invited to it. No neighbor northwest of Hunter's Run park was, nor were neighbors on other streets that would be affected by the humps. In addition, the temporary radar site was not set up where the speed humps are proposed, but far down the street from them invalidating any reasonable study of speeding in the speed hump area. We request a no vote because speed humps are not necessary on Duck Creek Creek drive because they will provide no benefit in reducing accidents and incur significant costs. At the same time, there is a less costly, less intrusive, and more effective way to slow the one particular driver who appears to be of concern. On the benefits side, speed humps have been shown to reduce accidents by up to 29% on high traffic streets. However, in close to 25 years living on the street, we are only aware of one accident, caused by a drunk driver on a snowy icy night. We've requested and have not yet received accident data for the street. But, if we are correct, there is no accident prevention benefit: 0.29*0 = 0 accidents prevented. In contrast, There are significant direct, opportunity and indirect costs associated with the speed humps. Direct costs appear to be $7,500 or more for installation plus maintenance costs ({https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dvn/content/article]2008/09/24/AR2008092400981.htmI). The opportunity cost is that you cannot spend that money elsewhere to reduce accidents in actual accident prone areas. For example, I have been the first person on scene for three accidents on the corner of Melrose Avenue and Dublin Drive in the past few years. In terms of accident prevention, our taxpayer money is far better spent installing a stoplight at that intersection. There are many indirect costs. Many of these stand in direct contrast to your reported goals as a city council. If you care about the health of your citizens, do not install speed humps. Speed humps slow emergency response times, which can cost lives because seconds count for stroke and heart attack victims. Communities are banning or removing speed humps for this reason alone. A Lexis/Nexis search quickly turns up 58 articles about cities considering banning speed humps, many for this reason alone. In particular, read "Rescuers say speed humps hinder jobs" in the Tampa Tribune, 3/1/2001. In the same way that potholes do, speed humps damage vehicle drive trains and suspensions, including private vehicles, but also including taxpayer funded emergency vehicles, refuse vehicles, busses, snowplows, maintenance vehicles, etc. We would never ask you to deliberately create potholes to prevent accidents. I personally broke a sway bar in an off road capable SUV going less than 25 MPH on the speed humps on Shannon drive. They also damage pavement. See, for example, "Optimization of Speed Humps in Order to Improve the Traffic and Reduce Pollution," International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM; Sofia, Vol. 17, (2017). If you want to be an environmentally friendly city, do not install speed humps. They create noise pollution and damage roadside air quality and significantly contribute to global warming because of the repeated deceleration and acceleration. According to the BBC, "On roads with speed humps, carbon monoxide emissions increase by 82 percent, carbon dioxide emissions double and nitrogen oxide increases by 37 percent.", BBC.com, April 22, 2009. See also "Public Evaluation of Speed Humps Performance and Effectiveness," Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, No. 6, June, 2018. I've personally watched many drivers on Shannon Drive braking suddenly before the speed humps and accelerating madly between them. If you want to be a city that is considerate of elderly and disabled people, do not install speed humps. The additional bouncing harms elderly and disabled drivers with spinal and neck issues. If you want to be a bicycle friendly city, do not install speed humps. They create erratic behavior as drivers try to avoid them. How many times have you seen drivers swerving to the outside to put one wheel in the gap at the edge of the road? This creates hazards for cyclists beyond the uneven road surface. You don't want to be on the side of a car violently breaking and veering right and left to avoid the humps. Speed humps reduce property values. (For example, see "Prospective homebuyers reject home sites near speed humps," Tampa Bay Online, 9/20/2008, archived at https://www.radarsign.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/9-20- 08.TampaBavOnline.SpeedHumpsCalmTrafficButStirOutrage.RS .pdf). Finally, is there a cheaper alternative to slow traffic? Yes. Put up a couple of permanent, solar powered, radar -enabled signs that show speeds and flash when a driver is speeding. This seems quite effective in places like Dubuque Street. To address the one driver that seems to be causing concern (green mustang) bring in a cruiser to monitor speeds from time to time. A ticket or two will stop him. Sincerely, Thomas Rietz 948 Duck Creek Drive 2 Sarah Walz From: tomhaas <tomhaas@mchsi.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 9:48 AM To: Streets for People Subject: Duck creek dr my name is Tom Haas at 911 duck Creek drive and I would like to vote against speedbumps for our street thank you Sent from my U.S.Cellular© Smartphone 1 Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Maples, Sara E <sara-maples@uiowa.edu> Thursday, September 2, 2021 1:57 PM *City Council speed bumps on duck creek I oppose the installation of speed bumps on Duck Creek Dr. Please delay the vote or vote "no." Sara Maples 1106 Pheasant Valley St. Iowa City, IA 52246 Sara-maples@uiowa.edu 319-512-5178 Item Number: 14. 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 7, 2021 Resolution authorizing the installation of speed humps on Kenneth Drive, between Court Street and Camden Road. Prepared By: Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner Jason Havel, City Engineer Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood and Development Services Fiscal Impact: Funding for traffic calming projects is allocated from a line item in the CI P (S3816). Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Speed data and proposed traffic calming locations Correspondence Resolution Executive Summary: Residents of Kenneth Drive have successfully completed the City of Iowa City's Traffic Calming Program. Data collection determined that the street qualifies for the program based on traffic speeds. Staff discussed traffic calming with residents of Kenneth Drive at meeting held on June 23rd. The consensus of residents who attended the meeting was to move forward with a request for speed humps and to survey residents of the street. On July 7th a survey was mailed to 21 households along the designated portion of Kenneth Drive in order to measure support for the proposed speed humps. A map including the approximate location of proposed speed humps was included with each survey. In all, 61.9% of the households responded to the survey. Of those households that responded, 61.5% indicated support for speed humps. Background /Analysis: In Spring of 2021 residents of Kenneth Drive submitted a qualifying petition to be part of the Traffic Calming Program. To qualify for the Traffic Calming Program, the 85th percentile speed of traffic must exceed the posted speed limit by 5 MPH. Traffic data was collected at three locations on Kenneth Drive: between Charles and Ruth Streets, between Ruth and Gustav Streets, and between Gustav Street and Camden Road. The speed data are provided on the attachment along with proposed traffic calming locations. Kenneth Drive is a relatively new street that connects Court Street and Lower West Branch Road, collecting traffic from adjacent east -west streets in the Lindeman Subdivision. The pavement width is 28 feet and allows for on -street parking on both sides of the street. Staff observed that vehicles are frequently parked along both sides of the street. Block lengths and the frequency of intersections can influence speed. Four streets intersect with Kenneth Drive along the section being considered for traffic calming. All are T -intersections except for Camden Road. Staff reviewed the speed data and the street context with the City Engineer, Streets Department, and the Police and Fire Departments to identify appropriate ways to address the speeding issue. Edge striping, traffic circles, and bulb -outs are not feasible or appropriate on this street based on its width and the configuration of intersections and stormwater intakes. After review, staff concluded that speed humps would be the most effective means for lowering speeds. Neighborhood Process: A meeting of residents who live along this portion of Kenneth Drive was held on June 23rd to discuss residents' perceptions of the traffic and potential options for slowing speeds. Staff presented speed and traffic count information and reviewed various options for traffic calming. Speed humps were recommended by staff as the most effective measure for lowering speeds. At the meeting, residents of Kenneth Drive supported speed humps and requested to move forward with a survey of residents along the street section. On July 7th a survey was mailed to residents of Kenneth Drive to determine if there was support for speed humps. The mailing included all residential properties with frontage on Kenneth Drive, between Court Street and Camden Road. In all, surveys were mailed to 21 households; 13 households returned their surveys before the August 6 deadline. That is a 61.9%% response rate (13/21) Of those households that responded, 8 indicated support for the proposed traffic calming; 5 did not support the proposed traffic calming. That is an 61.5% approval rate (8/13). One survey postcard supporting traffic calming was received late and is not included in the calculations above. On August 16, staff posted signs along both sides of Kenneth Drive. This is to provide notice to the larger neighborhood and an opportunity for the public to share input with City Council. Emails received from those who wish for their input to be considered are provided as an attachment. Funding for traffic calming projects is allocated from a line item in the CI P (S3816). The cost to construct a single speed hump is $3,000 based on bids received during the 2019 construction season. Staff is recommending 3 speed humps along this portion of Kenneth Drive in order to meet the optimal spacing necessary to encourage drivers to travel at a consistent speed of 25 MPH (300-350 feet apart). With approval from the City Council, staff will move forward with installation of speed humps as proposed. ATTACHMENTS: Description Speed data and proposed traffic calming locations Correspondence Resolution Speed humps are not speed bumps SPEED BUMP -31' ft wide 4-6 inches high SPEED HUMP 10-12 ft wide 3-4 inches high If you would like to try driving over Modified Speed Humps, an installation is located on Glendale Rd, west of 7th Avenue. In evaluating locations for speed humps we consider distance from intersections and driveways, and locations of stormwater intakes. To be effective, speed humps should be spaced consistently approximately 300-400 feet apart. The goal in spacing speed humps is to encourage drivers to travel at a consistent speed along the length of the street. Speed humps do not interfere with on—street parking, turning movements, or access to driveways. winyt Modified Speed Humps allow vehicles with a wide wheel base, including buses and fire trucks, to pass through with minimal slowing. --441111 Kenneth Drive: proposed locations Camden Rd r Z +. -m=r Imo 1 ar-'.4 1144 74 Gustav St Apa Approximate Speed Hump Locations Spacing is 300-350 ft. apart #.trwrg-wi'�' — — RuhSt 101 la 2 • IF 0;1111 ries Dr MI m. 4 4,0 r 4156 a u .I 4145 sir .1111111111 Pt. k L s I Bair legt 11. pit 411 Between Camden and Gustav Southbound Average speed = 26 MPH 15% of vehicle travel at or above= 30.08 MPH* Average Daily Traffic = 235 vehicles Northbound Average Speed 26 MPH 15% of vehicle travel at or above= 29.85 MPH* Average Daily Traffic= 259 vehicles Between Gustav and Ruth Southbound Average speed = 28MPH 15% of vehicle travel at or above= 33.85 MPH* Average Daily Traffic = 185 vehicles Northbound Average Speed 27 MPH 15% of vehicle travel at or above= 32.23 MPH* Average Daily Traffic = 324 vehicles Between Ruth and Charles Southbound Average speed = 28MPH 15% of vehicle travel at or above= 33.74 MPH* Average Daily Traffic = 553 vehicles Northbound Average Speed 21 MPH 15% of vehicle travel at or above== 30.08 MPH* Average Daily Traffic = 70 vehicles *85th percentile speed is the speed that 85% of vehicles are travelling at or below. Inversely, 15% of vehicles are operating above this speed. Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Kevin Rauch <kjryankee@gmail.com> Thursday, August 19, 2021 1:50 PM Streets for People Speed Humps on Kenneth Dr. My wife and I live in the Lindemann subdivision. We are not in favor of installing "Speed Humps" on Kenneth Dr. I have several questions that I need to have answered in order to consider supporting this effort -- 1. What problem are you trying to address with this action? 2. What other solutions have been considered as an alternative? 3. How did this proposal come about -- was it requested by residents in the neighborhood? Kenneth has recently become a thru street between Court Street and Lower West Branch Road with the new residential construction just south of Lower West Branch Road.. Recently the city bus route was changed to include bus stops on Kenneth adding bus traffic If Kenneth is going to be something more than a "side street" and more of a "well travelled" street then treat it as such. Speed humps might work in an alley or lightly traveled street but not one that is as heavily travelled as Kenneth. I worry that in the winter that they will adversely affect the snow removal effort in the neighborhood -- a situation that is less than desirable even now with residents leaving their vehicles parked on the streets after it snows. I am also concerned about the additional wear and tear on our vehicles caused by the speed humps. Thanks for your consideration. Kevin Rauch 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council, Jennifer Howard<jennifer.howard.0819@gmail.com> Friday, August 20, 2021 10:04 AM Streets for People Installation of Speed Humps on Kenneth Dr I live with my family of 4 at 38 Kenneth Drive. As is shown in the data collected by the city, Kenneth Drive has seen a sharp increase in the number of vehicles and the speed at which the vehicles travel since connecting with Lower West Branch Road. We strongly support the installation of speed humps on Kenneth Drive to encourage these drivers to slow down. We have many children in our neighborhood and we have become increasingly worried for their safety from cars racing up Kenneth Drive. The speeding cars are also disruptive and dangerous in the evening when many families take a walk together and the speeding cars are very noisy at night after bedtime. Please vote to install speed humps along Kenneth Dr to protect our families. Thank you, Jennifer Howard 1 Sarah Walz From: Derek Parker <derek.parker24@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 12:48 PM To: Streets for People Subject: Kenneth Road Speed Humps Proposal To Whom It May Concern, I would vote to not install the speed bumps on Kenneth Drive. I'm not positive why they are being suggested. I understand it connects E Court and Lower West Branch, but I feel it's majority of people in the neighborhoods who take the street. It's not a shortcut, majority of people take Scott or Taft which both have higher speed limits. To me, it'll just cost money that can be used in better places plus will cause more wear and tear on all the cars (including city buses). What is the reasoning to suggest them? Thanks! Derek Parker 319-331-8523 This email is from an external source. 1 Sarah Walz From: The Kuennen Family <kuenfam@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 3:36 PM To: Streets for People Subject: Fw: Proposed Speed Bumps being petitioned for Kenneth Drive Forwarded Message From: The Kuennen Family <kuenfam@yahoo.com> To: Sarah-walz@iowa-city.org <sarah-walz@iowa-city.org> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021, 07:28:33 PM CDT Subject: Proposed Speed Bumps being petitioned for Kenneth Drive Hi Sarah, We were given your name to contact, so you could pass this information along to the City Council for their September 7th meeting to vote on the speed bumps proposed for Kenneth Drive, in Iowa City, 52245. We live on Ruth Street, right off of Kenneth Drive. Kenneth is the primary access to our street. Kenneth Drive has recently become a bus route. We have several concerns about speed bumps being put in, and OPPOSE this happening. Not living on Kenneth, we did not see the petition that went around and was signed by some neighbors. We live right off Kenneth though, and I wish they'd come to talk to everyone. * The streets in our area, Ruth St included, need other things addressed first, before speed bumps should be considered. Cars parking on both sides of the street make it difficult, if not nearly impossible, for emergency vehicles to get up and down the streets. This whole area, the Lindemann subdivision, needs that addressed. The City came out and said they addressed it, but there are far more homes and cars in this area now. It takes one party, with alot of guests parking in the streets, and a fire truck can't get done the street to an medical emergency or house fire. *The snow plows will have a terrible time with the cars, and then add the speed bumps, for them to clear snow. *The bus route is here, the bumps will cause them to have to slow down, and have a bumpy ride. Not to mention the wear and tear on under carriages of cars, trucks and busses. * Kenneth is our primary way in and out of the neighborhood. Neighbors are already planning alternate routes in and out, causing more traffic on other side streets off of Kenneth. It's just moving one issue to another street/streets. * We are worried about the re -sale of our home, and others, with the speed bumps. We'd never move to a neighborhood that had speed bumps through it. Please consider these points when voting for this, and please don't approve it, at this time. We'd like to see the parking addressed first, and have it only on one side of the streets. IF it's still an issue, then this can be addressed later on. Thanks so much, Tom and Stephanie Kuennen 4144 Ruth St Iowa City, Iowa 52245 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Marcia hulse <marcia.hulse@gmail.com> Thursday, August 26; 2021 3:20 PM Sarah Walz Streets for People Problem with Traffic Calming Speed Humps on Kenneth Sarah, Please forward this email to the City Council for their meeting on September 7. To counter the problem of speeding on Kenneth between Court Street to Camden Road we have suggested a number of traffic calming tools and strategies available to encourage safe driving. We want to thank Sarah Walz for responding to each email with explanation. Our understanding is that in order to determine whether Speed Calming Humps are warranted some of the residents must submit a petition. Many of the residents of neighborhood residents were not aware of the Proposed Traffic Calming issue until we saw posted signs of "Installation of Speed Humps" and the Sept 7 City Council vote on it. We have counted 15 houses on Kenneth between Court Street and Camden. If we add the houses at the end of the adjacent streets, we could add 6-7 more. Sarah stated that City Engineer staff recommended a solution and "met with the residents of the street and those in attendance" wished to move forward. Then City sent a survey to the residents of the street to measure support. She added that "at least" half of them must have signed the survey to support the proposed Traffic Calming Speed Humps. So "without" the knowledge of the other home owners that use Kenneth as our "main street" in and out of the neighborhood..(of which there are 80 households on Camden, Charles, Ruth, and Gustaf.) Asking only the homeowners along Kenneth Is a very small sample size of the parties affected by this action. Another fact that seems to have been missed - there is only one speed limit sign posted on Kenneth Street and that's just after you turn onto Kenneth from Court Street. There is no speed limit sign posted coming from Lower West Branch Road onto Kenneth or from Camden Road going south on Kenneth. It should be noted that the speed limit on Lower West Branch Road is posted at 35 mph. Drivers are not alerted to the slower speed limit on Kenneth Speed humps are intended to reduce driver speeds down to 10-15 miles per hour over the hump, and 25-30 miles per hour between humps is a series. [They can be arranged to avoid disruption of cycling lanes and on -street parking.] Although speed humps have been proven to reduce speed, traffic -calming can also be controlled In a more cost-effective manner through the use of speed limit flashing signs that note the speed In which the car is approaching (Traffic -Calm Flashing Solar Sign system). Wouldn't it be better to at least try this method before installing expensive Speed Humps? The speed humps are excessive; promote unnecessary cost for continued maintenance. My research shows speed humps can cost $4,500 to $7,500 depending on the number of humps, height, width of the street, drainage conditions, and design. (The average cost is approximately $2,600 per speed hump.) Depending on power, size, manufacturer, desired for your specific application, the cost of the Traffic -Calm Flashing Solar Sign system cost between $1,900 up to $7,500 (average $3,600). Studies repeatedly show that when alerted, speeders WILL slow down up to 80% of the time (which was the same effectiveness of Speed Humps). Feedback on the Traffic -Calm Flashing Solar Sign system are subtle but very effective reminders to drivers without all the noise and disruption of speed humps. Not only are the signs silent and more attractive, they are also very affordable and the solar power option makes them a green solution. I see that as a win-win all the way around! Some municipalities, HOAs and school districts across the nation face problems with speeding drivers. However, they are moving away from and/or removing Speed Humps as a Traffic Calming Solutions. For decades, speed hump were the only traffic -calming solution available. Today that's not the case. Here are some of the PROs to installing Speed Calming Humps: 1. There is a real and verified speeding problem that poses concern to some of our neighbors. 2. Speed Calming Humps are known to slow vehicle traffic (about 80%). Keeping vehicle traffic speeds closer to the posted speed limit increases the safety of our neighbors. Here are some of the CONs to installing Speed Calming Humps: 1. They are expensive to install and expensive to maintain - Speed humps can cost $4,500 to $7,500. Where does the funding to pay for the Speed Humps come from? 1 2. Speed Humps slow the response time of emergency vehicles. Given the onboard water and vehicle weight, each Speed Calming Hump costs the Fire engines ten seconds in response time and Police and other emergency vehicles about three seconds for each speed hump. Sometimes seconds count - heart attack, stroke, fire. 3. Speed humps have adverse impact on cleaning the snow and ice from the streets as well as the wear and tear on the snow removal equipment. 4. Speed humps can reduce property values - prospective homebuyers might reject home sites near speed humps. 5. Speed Humps Increase noise levels - Speed Calming Humps usher in the sound of scraping cars and engines revving over the humps. Speed humps are irritating - it's the same type of irritation as going over chuck holes. 6. Speed humps have a negative effect on the environment, increasing pollution as vehicles slow below the speed limit and then accelerate away. On streets with Speed Calming Humps, one study found carbon monoxide emissions increased by 82 percent, carbon dioxide emissions double and nitrogen oxide increased by 37 percent. 7. Speed Humps reduce vehicle fuel efficiency and increase gas consumption because drivers brake and accelerate as they traverse each Speed Hump 8. Speed Humps can cause damage to vehicles, particularly performance vehicles (even at low speed). They Increase the wear and tear on residential and commercial vehicles - excessive wear on tires, brakes, suspension systems, shock absorbers and rattle dashboards. 9. Speed Humps cause ground vibration when vehicles navigate them and send shockwaves to the nearby homes. The cumulative effect has been proven to damage nearby properties, such as cracks developing in exterior masonry walls and in the drywall constructed walls within homes. (In fact some in some areas official regulations state that such humps can not be implemented anywhere within 25 meters of bridges, subways or tunnels.) 10. Speed Humps often divert traffic to alternative residential streets. Despite the attractiveness to SOME homeowners the installation of Speed Calming Humps create an unacceptable solution for many of us homeowners. 2 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Kjryankee <kjryankee@gmail.com> Friday, August 20, 2021 8:49 AM Sarah Walz Re: Speed Humps on Kenneth Dr. You may share all of my comments with the appropriate parties. The other suggestion I would have to improve the traffic flow on Kenneth is to remove the on -street parking on Kenneth. Thanks Kevin Rauch Sent from my iPhone 'On Aug 20, 2021, at 8:34 AM, Sarah Walz <Sarah-Walz@iowa-city.org> wrote: Kevin, The reason the program works with the adjacent residents is that they are the ones who are most impacted by the speeds. We post the signs so that other residents are aware and can share their input with council. As for the street layout, I am not sure how to respond. We are experiencing so much speeding. Hardly a day goes by that we do not receive a complaint or a request for police enforcement and we simply do not have the resources to address these concerns. I think most people do a good job of staying at or around the speed limit but there is a not insubstantial number who just go way to fast for the comfort of their neighbors. I wish I had a better answer for you than that. The Traffic Calming Policy is not perfect but it is modeled on practices that we considered from around the country. Speed humps are not perfect but they do slow traffic fairly effectively. Thank you very much for considering this information and please let me know what, if anything, you would like me to forward to council. Sarah From: Kevin Rauch <kjryankee@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 9:36 PM To: Sarah Walz <Sarah-Walz@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Speed Humps on Kenneth Dr. <Image001.jpg> Thank you for your quick response and explanation. First of all I have to say that I am disappointed that we (and others in the neighborhood) were not part of the survey. or the meeting We live two houses off of Kenneth and it is our main street in and out of the neighborhood. Asking only the homeowners along Kenneth seems like a very small sample size of the parties affected by this action. Secondly if it was the intent to have the traffic remain "calm" why didn't someone think about that before extending Kenneth all the way thru to Lower West Branch Road. The additional traffic should not come as a surprise to anyone. Please pass my comments along t� the appropriate parties. Kevin Rauch On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Sarah Walz <Sarah-WalzPiowa-city.org> wrote: Kevin, I will forward you comments to City Council if that is your wish. I can also answer some of your questions: The City's Traffic Calming Program is driven by neighborhood residents—those who live adjacent to the street. The first step in the process requires them to submit a petition with signatures from at least half of the households living along the portion of the street where traffic calming is desired. When a qualifying petition is received the City measures traffic speed and volume at various points along the street. If the 85th percentile speed, more than 5 MPH over the speed limit, the street is considered qualifying. That means that 15% of drivers are operating at speed above 30 MPH. Along some sections of this roadway the 85th percentile speeds were over 33 MPH. A meeting with ICPD, ICFD, the Streets Department and the City Engineer to consider what options are available based on street width, intersection locations and arrangement, etc. Other options can include edge striping, curb bump -outs, median islands, etc. Speed humps were the recommended solution based on the context of the street, which is essentially to say the other options were not workable. Staff then held a meeting with residents of the street and those in attendance wished to move forward. We then sent surveys to residents of the street to measure support. To be clear speed humps are not the bumps that one may find in, for instance, a mall parking lot or parking ramp or alley that force cars to slow to crawl. These a 12 -foot long humps that slow speeds to 2 about 20 MPH. The speed humps that would be installed also allow large, wide -axle vehicles like fire trucks and bus to pass through with little slowing or jostling. That said, not all people support or want speed humps. If it your desire for me to pass along your email, I will do so: Sarah Sarah Walz Associate Transportation Planner City of Iowa City / Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 319-356-5239 Sarah-walz@iowa-citv.org From: Kevin Rauch <kjryankee@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 1:50 PM To: Streets for People <streetsforpeople@iowa-city.org> Subject: Speed Humps on Kenneth Dr. <image001.jpg> My wife and I live in the Lindemann subdivision. We are not in favor of installing "Speed Humps" on Kenneth Dr. I have several questions that I need to have answered in order to consider supporting this effort -- 3 1. What problem are you trying to address with this action? 2. What other solutions have been considered as an alternative? 3. How did this proposal come about -- was it requested by residents in the neighborhood? Kenneth has recently become a thru street between Court Street and Lower West Branch Road with the new residential construction just south of Lower West Branch Road.. Recently the city bus route was changed to include bus stops on Kenneth adding bus traffic If Kenneth is going to be something more than a "side street" and more of a "well travelled" street then treat it as such. Speed humps might work in an alley or lightly traveled street but not one that is as heavily travelled as Kenneth. I worry that in the winter that they will adversely affect the snow removal effort in the neighborhood -- a situation that is less than desirable even now with residents leaving their vehicles parked on the streets after it snows. I am also concerned about the additional wear and tear on our vehicles caused by the speed humps. Thanks for your consideration. Kevin Rauch Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by • the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this Information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 4 Sarah Walz From: Amanda Haes <jha444@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2021 12:47 PM To: Streets for People Subject: Kenneth drive speed bumps Hi, I live in this neighborhood (on Lillian Dr) and am in strong opposition to installing speed bumps on Kenneth Dr. Most of the fast traffic has been construction workers. This is a temporary problem. A bigger problem is the lack of enforcement of street parking rules (cars face every directions and some cars sit for extended periods of time) and lack of general police presence. Please do not cause more congestion in our neighborhood. Amanda Haes 4149 Lillian St. This email is from an external source. 1 Sarah Walz From: Eberle Fink, Katherine A <k-eberle-fink@uiowa.edu> Sent: Saturday, September 4, 2021 5:54 PM To: Streets for People Subject: Kenneth drive speed bump opinion Hello, I live right off Kenneth Drive and wish to share my opinion about traffic control. Late Handouts Distributed q - 7 - 2_4 (Date) Since Kenneth St. has become a bus route, as well as allowing parking on both sides of the street it is very difficult to get up and down it easily. I already have to drive quite slowly to negotiate the parked cars. I assume that many parents of children who live on the street are concerned about those drivers who do speed down the street. I share their concern as some do drive very fast. To solve that issue I would recommend that a stop sign be placed at the intersection of Camden and Kenneth stopping those that are speeding. However the current yield sign for those turning off Camden on to Kenneth is sufficient and very helpful when the roads are snowy. However, not only does Kenneth have a curve in the street and a hill as one ascends off Court St., winter snow removal with the addition of speed bumps will become problematic. I do not have four wheel drive so there are times I have gotten stuck driving up to Camden when it is icy. I also worry about speed bumps being added to an already very crowded street. I encourage the city to not add speed bumps, but rather limit parking to one side of the street and insert stop signs on Kenneth at the intersection of Camden Dr. Thank you. Sincerely, Katherine Fink 32 Brentwood Lane Sent from my iPad This email is from an external source. 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Sarah, Kevin Rauch <kjryankee@gmail.com> Monday, September 6, 2021 9:40 PM Sarah Walz Re: Speed Humps on Kenneth Dr. Late Handouts Distributed (Date) I have been reviewing the agenda for the city council meeting scheduled for September 7 posted late last week.. I am a little confused about some of the findings and the statement that the majority (61.5%) of the people along Kenneth Dr. are in favor of the speed humps. If I am reading the communication correctly, 21 households along Kenneth were queried. 61.9% of those households responded (13/21). Of the 13 that responded 61.5% were in favor (8/13). If I am doing the math correctly that would mean that 8 out of the 21 voted in favor of the speed humps -- that is only 38% of the households queried in favor of the speed humps. With all due respect, I believe that the resolution that was presented does not accurately reflect the desire of those households along Kenneth, the numbers were skewed tor the benefit of one group. I do not believe that a failure to respond on the part of a household can be counted as a vote in favor of the speed humps. I could just as easily make the case that it would appear to me that a minority of the people along Kenneth actually voted in favor of installing speed humps. The fact is that no one group -- 1) in favor of (38%); 2) against (24%); or 3) abstaining (38%) -- have a majority from this survey. I am not sure how you draw the conclusion of people being in favor of the speed humps.. I would also like to reiterate that I do not believe that surveying 21 households is representative of the individuals in the neighborhood (100 households) that use Kenneth to travel to and from our homes. We would be affected by the speed humps even more so than some of the people who live on Kenneth who, depending on where they live on Kenneth, might never have to cross a speed hump to reach Court or Lower West Branch Road. I believe that if there is a need for traffic calming and speed humps are going to be a consideration to address this need, that input from all parties that use Kenneth Dr. on a daily basis should be taken into consideration. I understand that the city policy only requires that those households along the street directly affected be included in the survey but I believe that policy is flawed. The policy needs to be reviewed and needs to be revised to ensure equal representation and provide the opportunity of all parties impacted by decisions such as this to vote on the solutions. One thing that I have observed in this city over the past 18 months is that they are striving to provide representation to all citizens of this community. I think this is another example where change needs to occur. to include a wider group of people. I would request/suggest that this be tabled until a survey involving all residents of the neighborhood bordered by Kenneth, Charles and Camden to determine what, if any, action the majority of the people would like to see take place. Sarah, I am requesting a list of those that responded to the survey and how they voted. I trust that this communication like others provided earlier, will be shared with the city council in advance of their meeting on the 7th.. Sincerely Kevin Rauch 1 On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 10:46 AM Sarah Walz <Sarah-WalzPiowa-city.org> wrote: Kevin, We have approximate locations based on intersections and location of storms sewers and driveways. ■ AdiliaillikAILIMIllairilM om.w ryr loom, =kwImp Rd +mwr lo� Crim d From: Kjryankee <kiryankee@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 10:22 AM To: Sarah Walz <Sarah-Walz@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Speed Humps on Kenneth Dr. Does the city know exactly where they would install the speed hump(s) on Kenneth? Would there be more than one? 2 Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356- 5239 Resolution no. 21-251 Resolution authorizing the installation of speed humps on Kenneth Drive, between Court Street and Camden Road. Whereas, the City Council has established a traffic calming program for the City of Iowa City for the purpose of considering neighborhood traffic calming projects; and Whereas, the residents of Kenneth Drive have successfully completed the traffic calming process according to the City Council's approved procedure; and Whereas, a neighborhood survey has been conducted in accordance with the approved traffic calming program and an 61.5% majority of respondents who responded to the survey indicated they are in favor of speed humps; Whereas, the City Council finds said proposal to be in the public interest and is consistent with its adopted traffic calming program. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The proposal for speed humps on Kenneth Drive is hereby approved. 2. City staff is directed to proceed with the installation of speed humps on Kenneth Drive, between Court Street and Camden Road. Passed and approved this 7th day of September Attest: Kellie Fruehiing, City Clerk , 202 21. Bru1eague, Mayor Approved by City Atto ey's Office (Sara Greenwood-Hektoen — 9/1/2021) Resolution No. 21-251 Page 2 It was moved by Thomas and seconded by salih Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Bergus Mims g Salih x Taylor Teague x Thomas g Weiner the