[0:11] [music]

[0:25] Hey, hey.

[0:34] [music]

[0:45] » [music]

[0:56] » Heat. Hey, Heat. [music]

[1:10] » [music]

[1:11] >> Hey,

[1:15] [music]

[1:21] hey, hey.

[1:23] [music]

[1:33] » [music]

[1:36] » Hey, [music]

[1:51] hey, hey.

[2:03] Welcome to the July 14th, 2026 in-depth

[2:06] city council meeting. Cinda, will you

[2:08] please do the roll call?

[2:09] >> Council member Landy,

[2:10] >> present.

[2:11] >> Council member [clears throat] Osborne,

[2:12] >> present.

[2:12] >> Council member Gordon,

[2:14] >> present.

[2:14] >> Council member Brockert,

[2:15] >> present.

[2:16] >> Council member Lewis,

[2:17] >> present.

[2:18] >> Council member Connor,

[2:20] >> recording in progress. Council member

[2:23] Gind.

[2:26] >> Thank you. Please stand for the pledge

[2:27] of allegiance.

[2:30] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[2:33] United States of America and to the

[2:36] republic for which it stands, one nation

[2:40] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:43] justice for all.

[2:48] » All right. And tonight we have a

[2:50] presentation by HDR Engineering Inc. on

[2:53] the Isizit Avenue Cypress Street

[2:55] Reconstruction. Welcome.

[2:57] >> Thank you. Well, we're happy to be back.

[3:00] Uh my name is Morgan Maize with HDR.

[3:02] With me is Taylor Thielen with HDR as

[3:04] well. So tonight we want to go a little

[3:06] bit deeper into the Isit Cypress

[3:09] reconstruction project. We were here in

[3:11] midappril. Gave you guys real short kind

[3:13] of high high level overview on that one.

[3:15] There was some really good discussion

[3:17] and questions. So tonight, we're really

[3:19] going to start from the very or south

[3:20] end of that and go to the north end and

[3:23] step through every inch of that project

[3:24] at least to give you guys an opportunity

[3:26] to see what's being proposed and ask any

[3:28] questions along the way. There will be

[3:31] some key things tonight considering

[3:33] aesthetics where we would really

[3:35] encourage any sort of feedback or um

[3:38] discussion on what you council members

[3:40] may be considering or envisioning for

[3:42] certain aspects of it. um those being

[3:45] like, "Hey, we've got some bridge

[3:46] aesthetics and some railing or we've got

[3:48] retaining walls. What kind of appearance

[3:51] do we want those to have?" Right? So,

[3:53] those are a few opportunities tonight.

[3:54] We really would encourage that feedback.

[3:57] And then throughout the discussion

[3:58] tonight, please just this is meant to be

[4:00] collaborative. So, please just get our

[4:02] attention. Let's ask questions as we go

[4:04] and uh have a good discussion. So, with

[4:07] that, I'll step into this. Um so, we

[4:10] have the Isiza Avenue Cypress

[4:12] Reconstruction Project. the overall

[4:13] purpose and need of this project. We

[4:15] never want to really lose sight of this.

[4:17] Right? So, this is intended to really

[4:19] bring about some long-term

[4:20] reconstruction. Right? This corridor has

[4:23] it's important. It's industrial. It's

[4:25] the main conduit and truck route from

[4:28] Highway 61 at the bypass all the way

[4:30] down to Fifth Street at H&I. Right. So,

[4:33] it's pretty key. We're serving H&I.

[4:35] We're serving other industry. We've got

[4:37] key connections at Lake Park Boulevard,

[4:40] at Clay Street, at Bidwell, 11th Street,

[4:42] right? You name it. Our detour route on

[4:44] the 8th when we've got flood

[4:46] considerations down at Fifth. So, it's a

[4:48] big deal. Um, so we are looking at this

[4:50] project for the long term as something

[4:53] that's really going to serve the

[4:54] community moving forward. Um, so we've

[4:57] also got neighborhood access, right? All

[4:59] of the south end of this and really the

[5:00] north end of it serves a lot of the

[5:02] community. And so we want to make sure

[5:03] that this project is safe. it's

[5:06] consistent um to keep moving through and

[5:09] really we're improving the pedestrian

[5:11] and bike connections throughout the city

[5:14] of this this primary corridor. So,

[5:17] >> hey Morgan.

[5:18] >> Yes, Mayor,

[5:20] >> can you speak into the microphone? We've

[5:21] got some concerns on channel two about

[5:23] not hearing as well as YouTube. So,

[5:26] >> you got it.

[5:27] >> Thank you. Sorry about that.

[5:28] >> No. So, project funding. I want to make

[5:31] sure that just to reiterate this. So

[5:33] this project has designon funding

[5:36] currently. So the city was awarded a

[5:38] federal raise grant a few years ago to

[5:41] fund the design only of this project. So

[5:44] that does not include any sort of

[5:46] construction funding through this. So

[5:48] one of the big tasks ahead of us is

[5:50] continuing the discussion about how

[5:52] we're going to fund the implementation

[5:54] and construction of this project. Um so

[5:57] that's one thing that we've got a lot of

[5:59] different options ahead of us. I think

[6:01] there is always the continued request

[6:03] for federal funding at a full project

[6:06] level or broken into pieces and that's

[6:09] kind of the basis for how we've

[6:10] approached the design of this as well to

[6:12] give the city the most opportunity to

[6:15] find small and large funding for the

[6:17] project. So ultimately,

[6:20] >> Council Member Jer.

[6:21] >> Yes.

[6:22] >> Okay to interrupt. Is that right?

[6:23] >> By all means.

[6:23] >> Okay. So I just uh what's the bottom

[6:27] line on who's in charge of getting these

[6:29] grants?

[6:31] Well, that's a good discussion. So, our goal as the consultant is to really

[6:35] serve the the project and the community,

[6:38] right? So, we are going to always

[6:39] advocate and help show you guys a path

[6:42] towards implementation.

[6:45] Funding funding the design of a project

[6:46] is great, but I don't always like a

[6:48] project that's been designed and it's

[6:50] perfect and it sits on a shelf and then

[6:51] it's never built for the community,

[6:52] right? We design for the community in

[6:54] mind. So part of what we will continue

[6:57] to do is advocate towards these are

[6:59] opportunities for funding and then we

[7:01] are always available outside of this

[7:04] specific design contract because it's

[7:06] not allowable under the design under the funding guidelines to support grant

[7:10] applications, grant kind of uh basically

[7:14] scoring of which ones are most

[7:16] applicable to this, which ones this

[7:18] community has the best opportunity to go

[7:19] after. Um that's something that our team

[7:22] does really really well and um will help

[7:25] continue in that in that path forward.

[7:27] So um one of the and it's worth noting

[7:30] right now one of the current calls for

[7:32] projects that are out there is through

[7:34] the bystate regional commission which is

[7:35] our mo here in the quad quad cities

[7:37] region. They have a uh uh surface

[7:41] transportation block grant opportunity

[7:43] which is a federal 8020 split grant that

[7:47] right now they are calling for projects

[7:49] that extend through federal fiscal year

[7:51] 2030. So I believe in bystates region

[7:55] over that period of time there's a

[7:57] collective pool of close to $22 million

[7:59] in funds that I would encourage part of

[8:03] this project request funding over that

[8:05] time period to at least get one of these

[8:08] projects partially funded through that.

[8:10] So that is that maybe it's the first ask

[8:12] of support there if the council does

[8:15] support us supporting the city going

[8:17] after some of those funds and making

[8:19] sure that we're applying for at least a

[8:20] portion of this project. To give you a

[8:22] baseline right now the the March

[8:25] estimate that we did for the entirety of

[8:27] just construction only was pushing $19

[8:29] million right in 2026.

[8:33] >> Yeah. And I'll I'll add to that more. Go

[8:35] ahead. We early on in the design

[8:37] process, we strategically split this up

[8:39] into three different areas to really try

[8:41] to hone in on, you know, specific one

[8:45] area like the middle section we'll talk

[8:46] about later, but really there's

[8:48] applicable funding to the middle section

[8:50] um city bridge funds and others. Um it

[8:52] also has a roundabout in there. So we

[8:54] really broke that up and made these all

[8:56] independent of each other. So they can

[8:58] theoretically be built um all

[9:00] independently um and in sequence. So

[9:03] that was just a strategy we instead of

[9:05] having to get a huge bucket of money, we

[9:07] can kind of

[9:08] >> break it into bite-sized pieces and get

[9:10] >> So if you were to break this into three

[9:11] pieces, right, you're probably going to

[9:12] be averaging in that six to7 million a

[9:15] piece range, right? So finding funds if big picture ballpark discussions,

[9:21] right? If there's $22 million of set

[9:22] aside within bystate, you're probably

[9:24] looking at potentially a one project off

[9:28] for the city of Musketine that's going

[9:29] to be in that four and a half, five and

[9:31] a half range. It's just my guess right

[9:33] now of potential funding that you could

[9:36] go after and competitively uh compete

[9:39] for there. So that's big picture

[9:42] something that I think we should

[9:43] consider going after there. And then as

[9:45] Taylor indicated, there are multiple

[9:48] individual elements that allow these

[9:50] projects to proceed that we can compound

[9:52] funding on top of each other to to

[9:55] coincide with that. So, I think a lot of

[9:58] the continued discussion about this

[9:59] project will be about how we're going to

[10:01] fund the implementation of it. Um,

[10:02] because one of the grant considerations

[10:04] and requirements is that the project

[10:06] does move forward to construction. It

[10:08] cannot just sit.

[10:10] >> So, I've got a question. How quickly do

[10:12] we need to apply for those grant funds?

[10:14] So the current round of solicitations

[10:16] through bystate actually is due by the

[10:19] end of this month January 30 or July

[10:21] 31st to u go for solicitation for

[10:24] projects through federal fiscal year

[10:26] 2030. Um so I would encourage again that

[10:30] we you know continue that discussion or

[10:33] apply for at least one of these projects

[10:35] within that that grant opportunity.

[10:37] >> Thank you.

[10:40] >> So funding we could talk about all day.

[10:42] I think that would be a further

[10:44] discussion as we continue throughout

[10:46] this project. But um overview, right,

[10:48] let's set the table here a little bit.

[10:50] So as Taylor indicated, we've got a long

[10:53] corridor of project, right? It's close

[10:54] to 1.7 miles. And what we have done is

[10:58] break that into manageable pieces that

[11:01] all have what the DOT defers as

[11:02] independent utilities. So these can be

[11:04] individual projects on their own. We can

[11:06] find individual pieces of funding that

[11:08] goes with it. And then what we've tried

[11:09] to do is help prioritize and in at least

[11:12] the the staff's view which one is the

[11:15] more priority that we hit first. So the

[11:18] way that we've looked at this is the

[11:19] first segment would actually be the

[11:21] middle segment, right? That takes us

[11:22] from Woodlon on Isaac Avenue all the way

[11:25] up through the Clay Street intersection.

[11:28] So that would be the first segment that

[11:30] includes [clears throat] everything in

[11:32] front of Hines, the Bidwell

[11:34] intersection, their uh Geneva Creek

[11:37] bridge replacement as well as a proposed

[11:39] roundabout at Clay Street. That would

[11:42] all be part of that, that first segment.

[11:46] >> [clears throat]

[11:46] >> The second segment is the south segment

[11:48] which would extend on Cypress Street

[11:50] from Fifth Street on the far south end

[11:52] all the way up to tie in there at

[11:53] Woodlon and include the 11th Street

[11:55] intersection as well then and everything

[11:58] part of that. And then the final segment

[12:00] is recommended as the north segment

[12:02] which is everything north of Clay Street

[12:03] to the bypass.

[12:08] So, what we've got planned here is that

[12:11] we'll step through each of these

[12:12] segments in a little bit more detail so

[12:14] that you guys can ask questions and just

[12:16] get a better understanding of what's

[12:17] being proposed intersection by

[12:19] intersection, segment by segment.

[12:22] [clears throat] So, employment

[12:23] industrial area, that middle segment is chalk full of this is our one of our

[12:27] primary industrial areas on the

[12:29] corridor. Not that the whole thing

[12:30] doesn't lead to industry, but right here

[12:32] on the corridor is a big one. We've got

[12:34] a lot of trucks during the peak activity

[12:36] hours as well as um a lot of safety

[12:38] driven decisions that we need to make

[12:40] for improving the connection with

[12:42] Bidwell and um and Clay Street.

[12:48] So, um we try to showcase here some

[12:51] street views of just what is existing to

[12:54] give you guys that sense of reality here

[12:57] of where that's at and then what is

[12:58] being proposed. So, this is a section

[13:00] that's there just past Bidwell and north of Bidwell um with the the strip

[13:05] mall area where we're proposing to take

[13:07] that down from a four-lane section to

[13:09] actually a three-lane section. Now,

[13:11] through the majority of this corridor, I

[13:13] want to

[13:15] offer the opportunity, imagine you're

[13:17] driving this section and how many times

[13:19] we have to change lanes or shift how

[13:22] we're driving up and down this roadway.

[13:24] One of the primary goals of this whole

[13:26] project is to be safe, consistent,

[13:29] something that drivers can reliably know

[13:32] I've got a single lane or this is the

[13:34] lane I need to be in that's through

[13:35] traffic or turning. So when we propose

[13:38] any sort of adjustment to that typical

[13:41] roadway section, it is always with that

[13:43] safety driven mindset that is driving

[13:45] this. We have done a traffic study.

[13:47] We've reviewed all the different traffic

[13:49] um uh projections as far as traffic.

[13:53] there's really no projected change to

[13:55] the level of traffic. Um, so this is all

[13:58] compliant with what we would expect to see for proposed roadway. So with

[14:03] that, I'm going to let Taylor kind of

[14:04] jump into some of the details.

[14:08] >> Okay. Yeah, we have quite a few slides

[14:09] here. So I'll have the highlights on on

[14:11] each of these here. This is the what you

[14:14] just saw, but kind of in more of a

[14:17] typical section view. Um, you have your

[14:21] center left turn lane. It's 12 foot

[14:23] lane, then two 11 foot lanes, two drive

[14:26] lanes there. Um, we are adding a eight

[14:28] foot trail and so by necking down from

[14:32] that four lane to the three lane, that's

[14:34] what we're basically that's where that

[14:37] additional pavement is going. So, our

[14:40] goal has been throughout this project to

[14:42] try to squeeze this in within rightway

[14:44] best we can. Um there are areas that

[14:46] will will likely need temporary easement

[14:48] and maybe some partial acquisition and

[14:50] some permanent easements, but largely

[14:53] we're fitting within rightway um on this

[14:55] project.

[14:58] So here we we're starting with the

[15:00] middle section. This is what we

[15:02] projected to build first. Um this is on

[15:05] the south end of the construction

[15:06] limits. Um things to note here, the

[15:10] Hines crossing. I got my cursor here.

[15:14] Um we are making a couple of adjustments

[15:17] here at this at this crossing here. Uh

[15:20] currently today there's a traffic signal

[15:21] there. Um through our analysis with

[15:25] traffic we are proposing to remove that

[15:28] traffic signal there. Um but in

[15:31] replacement uh we're proposing this on

[15:34] if you look on the bottom left this RFB

[15:36] it's a pedestrian uh flashing beacon. So

[15:41] that will flash. And we are also adding

[15:44] with the addition of this uh this third

[15:47] or the center turn lane, we're adding a

[15:48] concrete median as a refuge island. So

[15:51] pedestrians cross to the median, they

[15:53] can take refuge there and then uh finish

[15:55] their movement across there.

[15:58] >> I'd add this is this is again based on

[16:00] the traffic analysis of what what has

[16:02] been showed and recommended there. We

[16:05] have had really great discussion with

[16:06] Steve and staff here lately. Um short of

[16:09] having the conversation with Hines

[16:11] directly that there's probably a desire

[16:13] that the actual signal be put back or a

[16:16] new one put in its place. So, um I guess

[16:19] we are aware of those those feelings

[16:21] right now. Um

[16:24] open any thoughts from from council as

[16:26] well of just we know that the amount of

[16:28] traffic pedestrian traffic when they

[16:30] come from there.

[16:30] >> Did you think about doing a walkover or

[16:32] a tunnel under?

[16:34] >> It certainly could probably not a tunnel

[16:36] under but a flood situation would really

[16:38] pose a risk here, right? The water table

[16:41] gets pretty high. You've got a close

[16:43] stream that's nearby. I love bridges.

[16:47] are really expensive, right? So,

[16:49] frankly, the the cheapest option is to

[16:52] protect that with some sort of true

[16:55] signal if you want to go to the next

[16:56] step above just a flashing beacon like

[16:59] that.

[17:01] >> I think that's also there to let

[17:03] employees drive out of that parking lot,

[17:05] too, to get traffic to stop so employees

[17:07] can leave.

[17:09] Not just for crossing, walking the

[17:10] sidewalk.

[17:11] >> Yeah.

[17:12] >> I agree, Matt.

[17:14] >> Yeah. If we're talking about safety all

[17:16] the time, removing that signal

[17:18] [clears throat] makes me a little

[17:19] nervous and stuff that we're talking

[17:21] about safety and safety is driving this.

[17:24] >> Removing that signal is probably

[17:26] >> makes me a little uh anxious and nervous

[17:29] about taking that out,

[17:31] >> especially as the the people are leaving

[17:34] from work or coming into work for

[17:36] traffic.

[17:36] >> Yeah.

[17:38] semis.

[17:40] >> Yeah.

[17:42] >> Well, I I echo that. I think we we've

[17:44] heard that several times now. I think

[17:46] the general consensus that we've

[17:48] received from city staff as well is that signal's been there. It's what

[17:52] we're kind of used to and it provides

[17:54] that additional level of crossing

[17:55] ability for those users and employees

[17:57] that are there at high.

[17:59] >> Right. Well, I think a red light would

[18:00] get more attention

[18:02] >> to [clears throat] a motorist than a

[18:03] flashing light because well, what is

[18:07] the lights.

[18:08] >> Yeah, you know what a red light is, what

[18:10] it means. Flashing light maybe not so

[18:12] much.

[18:14] >> I would agree.

[18:15] >> Yeah, I will say, you know, as we talk

[18:16] about these different changes and stuff,

[18:18] it's we are in a preliminary state and,

[18:20] you know, these are rooted in our

[18:22] traffic analysis, but doesn't mean

[18:23] they're, you know, set in stone by

[18:25] means. So, this is what we're looking

[18:26] for is some of this input. So,

[18:28] >> um,

[18:31] other other changes here. So currently

[18:34] today that the parking lot largely

[18:37] drains towards the roadway. Um you kind

[18:39] of see now kind of the white area there.

[18:42] We are introducing a small swale here to

[18:45] intercept some of that drainage. And um

[18:48] what this is helps us do in addition to

[18:50] all the additional storm sewer and

[18:51] upsizing the pipes. Now we have more

[18:53] resiliency in the roadway. So on on a

[18:56] smaller rain event that may where it may

[18:58] have flooded before or you know ponded

[19:00] quite a bit, we should be able to knock

[19:02] down some of those smaller rains and not

[19:04] have experience as frequent of flooding

[19:06] ponding. So

[19:07] >> I have an another question. I'm sorry.

[19:09] So did you I mean since we're redoing

[19:12] the road, you're going from four lanes

[19:14] to three. So that should give us a

[19:16] little bit more space. Is there any way

[19:18] to have like a a bike lane? I mean,

[19:20] we're looking at making our city more

[19:24] bike friendly, walkability. You know,

[19:26] that's the one thing we hear from

[19:28] constituents all the time is that they

[19:29] want that ability to do that where like

[19:31] up in Iowa City, there's actually a lane

[19:33] where the bikes can go and be out of the

[19:35] main traffic.

[19:38] >> Sorry.

[19:39] >> No, you're good. So, I mean, one of the

[19:41] key challenges throughout this project

[19:42] has just been trying to not take

[19:44] additional right away while still

[19:45] meeting the goals of that, right? We

[19:47] want to increase the bike ability of

[19:49] this entire corridor. So the the path

[19:52] that has been taken so far is that we

[19:54] want a dedicated separate bike path

[19:56] that's offered. And so we've provided

[19:59] that through the out the entirety of the

[20:01] corridor um from this far south end

[20:03] where we actually tie in at Fifth Street

[20:05] with a bike trail as it's shown here in

[20:08] the middle section as well that's on the

[20:09] east side of Cypress and Isaac. And that

[20:12] trail is, as Taylor mentioned earlier,

[20:14] eight feet wide and separate from the

[20:17] roadway. Um that continues all the way

[20:20] up until Lake Park where it will have a

[20:22] future connection with the rest of the

[20:24] greenway trail system, but then also

[20:27] flip over to the west side of Isizit and

[20:30] continue all the way up to Oak Park.

[20:32] >> Okay.

[20:33] >> So, we are accommodating that. Um maybe

[20:36] it's a personal preference, but I always

[20:38] like to see it separated. I've done a

[20:40] lot of on-road bike paths and bike lanes

[20:42] and it still poses a

[20:45] >> it's not as favorable to bikers, right?

[20:48] So, I I think what we've provided is

[20:50] something that is absolutely

[20:51] accommodating the biking as well as

[20:54] still providing a full 5-ft sidewalk on

[20:56] the other side of this. So, you are

[20:58] going to have either a 5-ft walk on one

[21:01] side and an 8 foot uh trail on the other

[21:04] throughout the corridor.

[21:09] Okay, let's move on to the next section

[21:11] here. Uh here the probably the focus

[21:13] would be the Oh, sorry about that. Focus

[21:17] here would be the the Bidwell Isait

[21:19] intersection. Uh we're really realigning

[21:22] that and getting that more 90. Um just

[21:24] it's much better from a you when you're

[21:27] going approaching the intersection, not

[21:28] having to make that, you know, turn with

[21:30] your head to to look for approach

[21:32] vehicles. Um we are updating all the

[21:35] signals here. There's you'll see the

[21:37] turn arrows there. We have dedicated

[21:39] turn lanes uh both from the eastbound is

[21:42] heading northbound on Bidwell and then

[21:43] the southbound Bidwell uh heading

[21:46] eastbound on Isizit. Um we are planning

[21:50] on currently to on the eastbound Isizit

[21:53] adding a green arrow so be a dedicated

[21:55] left turn there. Um that was something

[21:58] that had been discussed uh previously

[22:00] with the city that they um wanted there.

[22:03] So that's currently our plan on that.

[22:06] >> Why not a roundabout there?

[22:09] >> Yeah, so we we did look at a roundabout

[22:11] there

[22:12] >> um extensively. We we laid it out and I

[22:14] think we have maybe some more we don't

[22:16] have it on this slide, but we have a

[22:17] different slide. Um and how it kind of

[22:21] laid out there with with the kind of the

[22:24] skew and everything. The Hines truck

[22:26] traffic will really be traversing that

[22:29] kind of truck apron a lot. it it really

[22:32] was kind of an awkward movement for the

[22:34] trucks and with the volume of trucks

[22:36] didn't really make a lot of sense to

[22:38] have make them make that movement all

[22:39] the time. Um, we also looked at it from

[22:41] a benefit cost analysis perspective. DOT

[22:44] provides this spreadsheet that looks at

[22:46] safety factors and cost and it really

[22:50] had a low ratio on that. So like from

[22:52] two different angles, we looked at it

[22:53] and it really just didn't pencil out

[22:56] versus clay did did pencil out as a

[22:59] pretty good option and has better turn

[23:01] movements. So

[23:03] >> So what is the plan to get into Hines in

[23:06] the process of cutting like when we

[23:08] build this to get the semi- traffic to

[23:12] Hines?

[23:13] >> I I'm just thinking that's a big huge

[23:15] chunk of road to take out and that's

[23:17] their entryway.

[23:18] >> You're thinking like a designer already.

[23:19] So no. Um so what we actually have

[23:22] proposed for the entirety of this

[23:24] through the section here um at Geneva

[23:28] bridge and from Clay Street. So we don't

[23:31] have the detour routes shown on here but

[23:33] essentially when we get I might even go

[23:35] up to Clay and just kind of start the

[23:36] discussion there. Uh yes. So, it's not

[23:41] shown on here, but we are going to

[23:43] construct this proposing to construct

[23:45] the entire roundabout while we have a

[23:47] detour that connects Isait to Clay.

[23:52] While that is being done, Hines traffic

[23:56] will go in on their through their north

[23:59] lot and cross their separate bridge that

[24:01] crosses into the plant on the north end

[24:04] because during that closure, Isaac would

[24:07] be closed in this area and we would be

[24:08] reconstructing the bridge and everything

[24:10] leading up to Bidwell under a full

[24:13] closure there.

[24:14] >> So, does that mean then semi-tra would

[24:17] be coming down Lake Park?

[24:19] No, because that's not a dedicated truck

[24:22] route that's permitted, right? So, we

[24:23] have to leave Isait open

[24:26] >> so that we would actually maybe it's

[24:27] kind of hard to see, but essentially we

[24:30] have a detour route, a detour road that

[24:32] cuts this corner

[24:34] >> to be able to connect in. So, you always

[24:36] will have full connection from Isiza to

[24:38] Lake Park and then that allows for the

[24:40] truck movements and deliveries into into

[24:43] Hines during that time. So we have

[24:45] thought through all the staging

[24:47] >> that that that property you're

[24:49] highlighting is not Hines property.

[24:52] That's a privatized warehouse.

[24:54] >> Correct. 103 is not

[24:55] >> correct.

[24:56] >> So you're going to have to bring a group

[24:57] Clay.

[24:59] >> So yeah, there is an entrance to Hines

[25:03] basically right at the edge of this page

[25:05] here that is there today. It's already a

[25:07] fence gate and entrance and that's been

[25:09] coordinated with Hines that that would

[25:11] be allowable for their access during

[25:13] construction.

[25:15] off of Clay Street though. Advis it is

[25:17] closed. Got to come off of Clay.

[25:19] Correct.

[25:20] >> Correct. You're going to come in off of

[25:21] Clay Street here on that north end of

[25:23] their property.

[25:27] [clears throat]

[25:28] >> But I You're still coming down Is it?

[25:31] >> You're coming down Isait this way.

[25:32] >> Coming down is I You're not coming all

[25:34] the way off of Clay off of Park Avenue.

[25:36] Correct. I'm still coming down.

[25:37] >> We cannot detour truck traffic through

[25:39] that route at all. Right. The only truck

[25:41] route to get down there is from Isizit.

[25:44] So if we have to close any part of this project, this is the only section

[25:48] that would have a full closure that

[25:50] allows that detour and that truck

[25:52] traffic to still continue. The rest of

[25:54] the truck traffic that would in theory

[25:55] be going past Hines have to has to go an

[25:58] alternate route.

[26:00] >> Okay. So, how much extra ride ofway will

[26:03] we need to construct a roundabout that

[26:06] will accommodate

[26:08] 53 ft trailers and the semi- rigs and

[26:11] all of that to go through there easily

[26:14] without having to stop and back up and

[26:18] jockey around.

[26:19] >> Yep. Right. There are some acquisitions

[26:23] necessary with this one. We are not

[26:25] taking any of the corner of Hines that

[26:27] is here. And actually, we're not taking

[26:29] anything off of this property in final

[26:32] design. It's hard to see, but there's

[26:33] some dash lines in here of what is the

[26:35] right of way. Um, but over on this west

[26:38] side, there is some right-of-way

[26:40] considerations that we have to to

[26:41] consider. Um,

[26:46] probably a deeper discussion that could

[26:48] be had, but the the the roadway itself

[26:51] through here has been designed to

[26:52] accommodate what we would call a 25-y

[26:55] year storm event.

[26:56] >> Mhm.

[26:57] >> Right. So you might remember maybe 18

[26:59] months ago we had our latest flood down

[27:01] here and we had probably I don't know 10

[27:04] inches of rain above water above the

[27:06] roadway and I was closed. That's a good

[27:10] idea of what we're trying to make sure

[27:12] we design the roadway to be above so

[27:14] that we do not have any closure for a

[27:17] storm event in that in that 25 year

[27:19] range. Right? So, in order to

[27:22] accommodate that though, we have to

[27:24] consider the different hydraulics that

[27:26] are here and how much we're raising that

[27:28] roadway.

[27:29] So,

[27:31] I'm going to try and lay out a picture

[27:32] here. I guess envision this. Right now,

[27:34] that roadway is pretty low and it gets

[27:37] flooded, right? As we just experienced.

[27:40] >> If I'm raising that roadway, I'm now

[27:42] blocking the path that that water has

[27:43] available to it to continue down to Mad

[27:46] Creek and further downstream.

[27:48] So now, as I raise that roadway, I'm

[27:50] backing up that that water. It all has

[27:53] to get through Geneva Creek Bridge.

[27:56] In order to do that without making us

[27:58] have, oh, I don't know, 200, 250 foot

[28:02] long bridge to do that, we're going to

[28:04] create a little bit of backwater that

[28:06] goes further upstream until that water

[28:08] can pass through the new bridge. that

[28:10] does cause some concerns with some of

[28:12] the real estate on this upstream side of

[28:15] the roadway that we're going to have to consider as we go through that either

[28:18] through mitigation opportunities or

[28:20] through acquisitions that impact it. So,

[28:26] this this property and some of it there

[28:29] along that that north bank of Geneva

[28:32] Creek is is something that we'll have to

[28:34] consider what's how we want to approach

[28:36] that to mitigate that backwater effect.

[28:39] Now, this roundabout itself

[28:42] has been designed to fit in here that

[28:44] could accommodate that house not being

[28:46] taken. But then we have those other

[28:48] rightway and hydraulic considerations

[28:49] that we'll have to talk through and work

[28:51] through.

[28:51] >> Okay.

[28:53] >> So, but throughout all of this, we've

[28:55] minimized right ofway acquisition a a

[28:59] lot. So, hopefully that answered your

[29:02] question.

[29:02] >> Yes. Thank you.

[29:03] >> Okay.

[29:04] >> Yeah. Yeah. And then with the truck,

[29:06] your question on the truck turn

[29:07] movements that that was all considered

[29:09] in there. This this is the the true size

[29:11] >> accommodating those trucks in there. So

[29:14] >> we've got some situations in town where

[29:17] the trucks go through the like the by

[29:19] the roundabout at second in Malberry and

[29:21] then they have to make this hairpin turn

[29:24] down

[29:25] just a block down the street getting on

[29:28] the Mississippi drive and that to me

[29:31] >> no

[29:32] >> that doesn't work.

[29:32] >> Nope. We designed the basically overall

[29:34] circle and everything to accommodate the

[29:36] larger trucks knowing the truck volumes

[29:38] in this corridor. So,

[29:40] let's see.

[29:44] Uh, one thing to note here, um, we were

[29:47] alerted to some flooding that was

[29:49] happening um, periodically over the

[29:52] years in this corner here. Looked into

[29:54] it. Um, there's there's about 51 acres

[29:57] of drainage coming into that uh,

[29:59] existing 24 in uh, storm pipe. So, it's

[30:02] severely unders sized. So, that's one of

[30:04] the upgrades here. Um, as part of our

[30:06] overall storm upgrades, we're actually

[30:08] upsizing that to a 48 inch pipe. Um, and

[30:11] it'll handle that those floods and won't

[30:14] get into that.

[30:14] >> That's right on the back side of Martin

[30:16] Wood.

[30:16] >> Yeah, exactly. It won't get into their

[30:18] parking lot as often. So, that was that was one of those cases where the,

[30:23] you know, the stuff on that we're seeing

[30:25] in the design, right, is actually

[30:26] matching pretty closely with the

[30:27] reality. So, that'd be a big improvement

[30:29] there.

[30:31] Um we are showing anytime you see the

[30:32] blue there's a retaining wall. So there

[30:34] already was a retaining wall out there

[30:35] but uh with these improvements u we'll

[30:38] get into some discussions on the

[30:39] aesthetics but this will be a retaining

[30:42] wall alongside the wall.

[30:44] >> So the retaining wall will hold the

[30:45] roadway back right. Road is going to be

[30:47] higher than it is Phil wall I should

[30:49] say. Yeah.

[30:50] >> But what's what's shown there is what

[30:52] would be reconstructed up to Leroy

[30:54] Street there. Um Yep.

[30:58] um show you can kind of if it's a little

[31:00] small but there's the we are planning to

[31:03] reconstruct some of the sanitary sewer

[31:04] that's um aging and in poor condition

[31:07] through this area um as well as adding

[31:10] as I mentioned before a lot of different

[31:12] intakes on the west side is a general

[31:14] note of this whole project on the west

[31:15] side there's a lot of drainage coming

[31:17] into that to the from the west and uh

[31:20] today there's just severely undersized

[31:22] for storm sewer and intake so it'll

[31:26] um around a 10-year storm we're going to

[31:28] accommodate for uh for just your average

[31:31] surface drainage. So that in conjunction

[31:34] with our grade, it's it's going to be a

[31:36] lot a lot better during rain events.

[31:41] » And and as you say grade, right,

[31:44] basically from Bidwell to the north

[31:46] until we get to Clay Street, we are

[31:48] raising that roadway. It's going to go

[31:51] from about a zero zero change to at the

[31:55] road at the bridge area itself that road

[31:57] is approximately 4 feet higher than it

[31:59] is today through there. So that is that

[32:03] will be a change. It'll be a little bit

[32:04] different how we get into that strip

[32:06] mall that's there on the south side of

[32:07] it. Um but that is probably the biggest

[32:11] vertical change that we'll see

[32:12] throughout the corridor.

[32:15] >> Yep. And then similar to the other by

[32:18] Hines, we by that strip mall, we are

[32:21] pulling away that parking lot a little

[32:23] bit, adding that same kind of swale

[32:25] there. This pipe here is that pipe that

[32:28] I was just talking about, that 48 inch

[32:29] is actually becomes a 54 inch right

[32:31] here. Outlets into Geneva Creek. Um, and

[32:35] then some sanitary sewer replacement

[32:38] there. Uh, the three-lane section goes

[32:40] through here through the bridge and

[32:42] there's some bridge details we'll show

[32:43] you, too.

[32:45] Um, and we'll get into some bridge

[32:47] aesthetics later as well.

[32:50] So there you can see in that orange

[32:52] yellow box there, there's it's kind of

[32:54] hard to see a real dramatic raise, but

[32:56] that's that's the four feet raise that

[32:58] we're seeing there. The overall

[33:00] footprint of the bridge is going to stay

[33:01] about the same. Um, even though we went

[33:04] down from a four lane to a three lane,

[33:06] again, we're adding that trail. Um, so

[33:08] it ends up being about a wash from a

[33:10] width perspective. And then to construct

[33:12] it, we're going to build the abutments

[33:14] of the bridge outside of the existing

[33:16] abutments there.

[33:19] It's proposed as a 100 foot long bridge,

[33:22] three span

[33:23] >> and then wide enough uh to accommodate

[33:25] the sidewalk and the trail and then our

[33:28] three-lane roadway section there as

[33:29] well. So you don't necessarily need a

[33:31] turn lane on a bridge, but that's there

[33:33] to help for maintenance reasons and

[33:34] everything else and keep that roadway

[33:36] consistent as we go there. Right? we'd

[33:37] hate to set down a lane and all of a

[33:39] sudden we got a one lane road. So, um

[33:42] yeah, and it helps if you ever have any

[33:44] ponding, you can have additional lane

[33:45] lanage to use there. Um here we show the

[33:50] overall typical of the bridge. What

[33:52] we're proposing right now is a

[33:54] separation barriers separating the the

[33:57] bikes and the peds from the traffic

[34:00] here. Uh then there's a a railing

[34:02] proposed on top and then a a chain link

[34:04] or whatever we decide on the fence on

[34:07] the outside there.

[34:13] » We'll get to the bridge aesthetics.

[34:15] >> Oh yeah, that's right. Okay. Uh up here

[34:17] at Clay, we touched on this a little bit

[34:19] already. Um yeah, the that parking lot

[34:23] down there, that was one thing I wanted

[34:24] to mention is due to that detour. That's

[34:27] why we're showing this parking lot um

[34:30] reconstructed [clears throat] because

[34:30] we're already tearing up that whole area

[34:32] to make that connection. So, we're

[34:34] essentially putting back the number of

[34:35] spaces that they had out there was the

[34:38] goal there.

[34:40] And that's the and this is a tie-in

[34:42] point to the between the middle and the

[34:44] north project right there.

[34:46] And again, it can be built on its own

[34:49] without any uh modifications to the

[34:51] north or south.

[34:56] And then that's just oh that that's this

[34:59] will show you that entrance to to Hines

[35:01] right so this is on clay so this is

[35:03] where that existing gate is into Hines

[35:05] and where we would facilitate their

[35:07] access during construction for all the

[35:09] Hines traffic.

[35:13] So that brings us to the south segment

[35:15] right so that's our second priority

[35:17] project as we're looking at it today.

[35:18] So, we'll start on the fifth on the

[35:20] south end down at H&I and then move up

[35:22] through Woodlon. Um, again, this is more

[35:25] neighborhood context than anything else.

[35:27] We really want to improve this for the

[35:29] neighborhoods, right? There's a lot of a

[35:31] lot of improvements that can be made

[35:33] there. Um, we do see lower volumes

[35:35] because you've got a bunch of traffic

[35:36] that does turn whether it's Bidwell or

[35:38] Hines or um, you know, even just 8

[35:42] Street that you that you lose some of

[35:43] that that traffic.

[35:46] So, here's a lot of what you see today,

[35:47] right? A lot of it is two-lane. Some

[35:50] areas have small parking, minimal

[35:52] parking that's along it. Um, but again,

[35:55] we want that consistent safe corridor

[35:57] that we're looking at. So, through all

[35:59] this, we're proposing most of this

[36:01] section other than a couple turn lanes

[36:03] that we'll look at like 8th Avenue or

[36:04] 8th Street. Um, where you've got two

[36:07] lane, a lane in each direction, and

[36:09] we're still maintaining then that trail

[36:11] and sidewalk um, as we've been

[36:14] proposing. So,

[36:16] um, this is this is a again that

[36:18] detailed typical section of what you

[36:20] would see where you've got 12 foot drive

[36:22] lanes, you've got a full curb and

[36:24] gutter, and then you've got the the five

[36:25] foot sidewalk on the west side and the

[36:27] 8-oot trailer sidewalk on the east side

[36:30] throughout that. Um, I will say the

[36:33] south segment has been a really big

[36:35] focus talking with MPNW and our partners

[36:37] over there on how we're going to handle

[36:39] all the utility accommodations uh

[36:41] throughout this one. So, um, Mark is

[36:43] here today and it's been a really great

[36:45] partnership and collaboration to date

[36:46] and so we've been really, uh, continuing

[36:49] that discussion to make sure utilities

[36:50] don't become an issue.

[36:52] >> Yeah, it's a quick question.

[36:53] >> By all means,

[36:54] >> have you, uh, done any real studies

[36:57] around 11th Street because that's kind

[37:00] of in a blind corner where it jogs very

[37:03] sharply. Yeah. And if you come down to

[37:08] Cyprus/Itit

[37:09] on that street, it's very hard to see

[37:13] around the corner. You could see down

[37:16] Cypress, but you can't necessarily see

[37:18] up Isit. Would that be a spot for a

[37:20] roundabout or have we discussed that?

[37:22] >> So that has been a deep discussion as

[37:24] well. When we started this project, I

[37:26] think there was aspirations that that

[37:27] also became a roundabout. But we came

[37:29] back to a very similar constraint there

[37:32] of just the

[37:33] >> the geology of that not geology, but I

[37:36] guess just the topographic state on that

[37:38] one. Right? So I'm showing that now on

[37:40] the screen here, but on this this

[37:42] northeast northwest corner,

[37:44] >> we've got a retaining wall there

[37:46] already, right? In homes and properties

[37:47] that

[37:48] >> really started to begin to be impacted

[37:50] by a roundabout fitting in there. And

[37:53] then the other aspect is if you can

[37:54] imagine this being a big circle that

[37:56] minimizes acquisitions and right and

[37:59] homes being impacted by it now you're

[38:02] asking every one of those trucks to

[38:05] traverse over the center of that

[38:06] roundabout.

[38:07] >> Okay.

[38:07] >> Right. And at the end of the day that

[38:09] being this this being a truck route that

[38:12] was probably the biggest deciding factor

[38:13] why we are proposing that to be just a

[38:16] cleaned up T intersection. um that

[38:18] allows allows that truck and through

[38:21] movements to to traverse that without

[38:23] having to drive over the center of a

[38:25] roundabout every single time.

[38:26] >> Right.

[38:27] >> How many tracks trucks African go up

[38:29] that way though?

[38:30] >> Yeah, they do.

[38:30] >> Do they?

[38:31] >> They do.

[38:31] >> There's quite a few that come down that

[38:33] way.

[38:33] >> So, yeah. The other thing is though, how

[38:35] do you plan or is there a plan to

[38:37] improve visibility?

[38:39] >> Yeah. So, the way that we've configured

[38:41] this right now is it's kind of a again,

[38:44] I wish I was able to just zoom on this,

[38:46] but we've kind of done this as a a a

[38:48] two-phase stop opportunity, right? So,

[38:51] we've accommodated the pedestrian

[38:53] crosswalk in here where you're stopping

[38:55] at the stop sign behind that, right? But

[38:58] there is room in front of that crosswalk

[39:00] as well for a vehicle to get in front of

[39:01] that crosswalk to have full visibility

[39:04] that's through there before they would

[39:05] be coming out. Now, we have a full stop

[39:07] control on 11th Street and no stop

[39:10] control on Isait Cypress right now as

[39:13] that is.

[39:14] >> So, we've reviewed the traffic analysis

[39:16] and I think Taylor, what were you

[39:18] telling me that every every 30 seconds

[39:20] you've got a northbound vehicle that's

[39:23] moving through there, every 15 seconds

[39:24] you have a southbound vehicle, right?

[39:26] So, there is room for uh that movement

[39:28] to come off of 11th Street. Um, if there

[39:32] is some real big concern that we're

[39:35] going to be holding up traffic on 11th,

[39:37] like then we could consider there being

[39:38] a dedicated left turn if we needed to,

[39:41] but right now the traffic projections

[39:43] just don't show that as being necessary.

[39:46] So, we've we've taken a really hard look

[39:48] at all of the intersections on this

[39:50] project. 11th, Clay, Bidwell, you name

[39:52] it. Um, cleaning up Lake Park, we'll

[39:55] talk about a little bit later. And this

[39:57] is what what we would recommend as being

[39:59] the most advantageous for safety and and

[40:02] the residents and community at large.

[40:05] >> So,

[40:06] >> okay. Thank you.

[40:07] >> You're welcome. So, we'll step back.

[40:09] >> We are we losing any is there any is

[40:12] there any on street parking currently

[40:14] there today in this section?

[40:16] >> So, there is

[40:19] probably a a couple spots that are just

[40:22] towards the top of the hill. I want to

[40:23] say when we're getting up towards

[40:25] seventh. Yeah.

[40:26] >> Um today, but they are not widely used

[40:30] and I would say not recommended if we

[40:32] want to fit all of this in there outside

[40:34] of taking rightway to still fit trail,

[40:36] sidewalk, roadway, everything in there.

[40:39] So throughout the south segment, we do

[40:42] not have any on street parking proposed.

[40:45] There is on street parking up on the

[40:46] north end of this corridor, but not the

[40:48] south end that's being proposed to fit

[40:50] all this in.

[40:52] So,

[40:53] um, so yeah, down at Fifth Street,

[40:56] recent coordination with city staff was

[40:58] let's let's replace part of that Fifth

[41:00] Street intersection further than what we

[41:02] had shown on the previous time. Um, and

[41:05] we are we've also had them worked with

[41:07] them to televise all of the sanitary

[41:09] sewer network down here. The

[41:10] recommendation from city staff and our

[41:13] further recommendation is that we would

[41:15] replace that sanitary sewer system as

[41:17] well, age, sizing, all of those things

[41:20] considered. um we don't want to have old

[41:23] infrastructure under a new roadway if we

[41:25] can. So this south segment all the way

[41:28] up through Woodlon is proposed for new

[41:30] sanitary as well. So that is a major

[41:33] consideration of just the extent of

[41:35] what's being reconstructed along here.

[41:37] And then we keep moving further north.

[41:40] Um it's worth noting yes this is old

[41:43] button factory. we are not touching that

[41:46] property in any way, shape or form if we

[41:48] can help it because it creates a whole

[41:50] lot of historical challenges.

[41:54] And then moving up the hill, um 8th

[41:57] Street was a big consideration last last

[42:00] time I was here. Peggy, I think you were

[42:02] asking a few questions on that. So, this

[42:04] does show where um we have left the

[42:07] dedicated turn lanes leading southbound

[42:10] at 8th and then also northbound at 9th.

[42:16] So, those turn lanes have been fully

[42:17] accommodated in there to make sure

[42:19] that's there. And we also understand,

[42:21] you know, 8th Street is a detour route

[42:24] when we have to close down at Fifth. And

[42:27] so there's been a lot of good discussion

[42:29] here with city staff lately about we had

[42:30] some kind of I would say bumpouts for

[42:33] the ADA crossings at these places that

[42:35] we have removed those um because they

[42:37] didn't they didn't really accommodate

[42:39] the way that staff likes to clear snow

[42:41] and maintain that that through fair as

[42:43] well. So a lot of good discussion

[42:46] collaboration with staff. Anything else

[42:48] on this section?

[42:49] >> No, that's that's good there.

[42:50] >> Okay.

[42:52] You want to jump in on anything else on

[42:54] 9th to 11th?

[42:56] >> Let's see. I think you covered the turn

[42:57] lane there.

[42:58] >> We covered 11th.

[43:00] >> I think this is more the same right

[43:03] through that section.

[43:03] >> Yeah.

[43:04] >> And then once you get north of 11th

[43:06] Street is [clears throat] where we go

[43:08] back to that birectional turn lane

[43:09] that's in the center of that and that

[43:11] full threelane section. You've got a lot

[43:13] more side streets that are, you know,

[43:15] oneoffs on one side or the other that

[43:17] make it a little bit more challenging.

[43:19] >> Yeah.

[43:22] And then here's our northern connection

[43:23] or northern tie-in point. So in theory,

[43:26] the middle section would have been built

[43:28] and then this would tie right into that.

[43:30] You'd have a continuous threelane

[43:31] section throughout here.

[43:36] All right. So north segment. So this is

[43:38] everything north of Clay Street. We

[43:40] talked about we already got a roundabout

[43:41] built through there. And then we're

[43:43] going to stage construction to continue

[43:45] all the way out to the bypass. Um,

[43:47] again, this is this is your highest

[43:50] volumes of traffic on the whole corridor

[43:52] are here. This is all of your regional

[43:54] connections, whether it's to Lake Park,

[43:57] back to the rest of, you know, that part

[44:00] portion of the city, the bypass, you

[44:02] name it. As well as we've got city park

[44:04] on the north end of this, right? So, um,

[44:06] we want to make sure that all those

[44:07] connections are are provided. So, this

[44:10] section does have on street parking.

[44:12] Once you get above the hill, um we are

[44:15] maintaining that parking um as well as

[44:18] continuing with the trail and sidewalk.

[44:21] So, north of Lake Park is where we

[44:24] actually transition that trail from the

[44:26] east side to the west side. So, we'll

[44:29] show that as we get a little bit deeper

[44:31] into the plans here. Again, that typical

[44:33] section um where you've got that center

[44:35] turn lane, two drive lanes, sidewalk,

[44:38] trail.

[44:42] And this is a section, yes, where we've

[44:45] got the on street parking there where

[44:46] you get rid of that center turn lane,

[44:48] but we're taking that same space up with

[44:49] the parking lane then.

[44:53] And then rule section on the far north

[44:55] end of that just like it is today,

[44:56] right? It's just two lanes of traffic.

[44:59] [snorts]

[45:00] So, assuming that we've got Clay Street

[45:02] all reconstructed already, uh this is

[45:04] where we continue that three-lane

[45:05] section up the hill, um trail maintains

[45:09] there on that east side.

[45:12] We've got some tight area through here

[45:15] for accommodating um utilities and some

[45:19] of the transmission main that U MPW has

[45:21] through here.

[45:23] And then that really came into play at

[45:26] Lake Park where we've had a lot of

[45:27] coordination with them recently about

[45:30] minimizing impact there. So, um, when we

[45:34] started this project, maybe you guys

[45:36] were part of some of these discussions.

[45:37] I think there was a desire that, hey,

[45:39] we're going to line up Lake Park and

[45:40] Hancock. I would love to, right? It'd be

[45:42] nice if those lined up, but there is a

[45:44] very tall transmission main pole right

[45:46] there.

[45:48] As of today, the costs don't necessarily

[45:51] benefit us doing that of trying to ask

[45:54] MPW to accommodate that relocation. So

[45:57] that poll today is like right here. And

[46:00] so we've actually shifted this roadway a

[46:02] little bit south to make sure that we're

[46:04] not impacting that in any way and making

[46:06] sure that everything is kind of lining

[46:08] up. And then we can also get trail and

[46:11] all those things in there with guywires

[46:13] considered and make sure that we've got

[46:14] exactly the experience that we all want

[46:16] on a on a roadway. and and bike trail.

[46:20] So, this is that new configuration. I

[46:22] don't know that there's anything else

[46:24] specific here.

[46:24] >> We just lined it up 90 just like the

[46:26] other ones, more of a traditional

[46:27] intersection. So,

[46:28] >> right,

[46:29] >> it's safety benefits there.

[46:31] >> So, we have to transition the bike lane

[46:34] from one side of the road to the other

[46:36] because of just the space requirement. I

[46:39] mean, obviously, it'd be great if we

[46:41] could just keep that trail on one side

[46:43] of the road, but we have to transition

[46:45] one side to the other. The thought

[46:46] process that we had here is where are

[46:49] the connections that we're really trying

[46:51] to to get to. Right? So, the reason why

[46:53] we kept it on that east side all the way

[46:55] up to Lake Park and continued onto that

[46:58] north side of Lake Park is because

[46:59] that'll be that connection over to the

[47:00] green waist belt system uh or park trail

[47:03] system. Correct. So, there that's been

[47:06] thought through and planned, but then

[47:08] when you the the impetus for switching

[47:10] to the west side is we've got Oak Park

[47:12] on that west side of the corridor up

[47:14] there. Um, meanwhile, you've also got

[47:17] parking that's already on the east side.

[47:19] And so, it felt more appropriate to move

[47:22] that trail to the west side and keep

[47:25] that trail along with the park or the

[47:26] sidewalk with the parking there. That was the more appropriate response

[47:31] to it. So, I agree crossing traffic is never, you know, perfect right where

[47:37] we want that. But the driver for that

[47:40] was we've got Oak Park on the west side

[47:41] and that's really the big connection

[47:43] draw that we found.

[47:43] >> Going to have to cross the street to get

[47:45] >> you're going to have to cross it one way

[47:46] or the other. So,

[47:47] >> and anticipating lights then uh for that

[47:50] trail cross.

[47:51] >> So, this one has not does not have any

[47:53] dedicated um crossing accommodations

[47:57] right now. It it would certainly be a

[47:59] candidate for at least those flashing

[48:01] beacons that are there. Um so, you know,

[48:04] those things all come at a cost. um you

[48:07] know those are easily a $15,000 option

[48:10] to add right at every single for each

[48:12] one of them right so you're you're

[48:14] adding costs quickly but again safety is

[48:16] paramount through all this so I could

[48:18] easily see that as a com as a comment

[48:20] that

[48:21] >> $19 million 15,000 is small percentage

[48:24] >> I agree

[48:26] >> Don oh sorry

[48:27] >> oh I'm sorry another question quick

[48:31] uh how are the folks who live around Oak

[48:34] Park going to get out if that is all

[48:37] closed.

[48:39] >> So the entirety of this north section of

[48:42] roadway would be staged construction

[48:45] that we are always maintaining full

[48:47] access in one way or the other.

[48:48] >> Okay.

[48:49] >> So we would not be closing down the

[48:51] roadway.

[48:51] >> Okay.

[48:52] >> So throughout any of these projects like

[48:54] this, it is always the residents and you

[48:57] know businesses and everything that we

[48:59] want to minimize that impact and provide

[49:01] accommodations throughout there. So, um

[49:04] I think we've done a really good job of

[49:06] laying that out on the staging plan for

[49:08] this already that all of those roadways

[49:10] would be done in a way that we can

[49:11] maintain access.

[49:14] >> Hey, Don, back to your point, the homes

[49:16] on that east side, they don't have much

[49:19] front yards. They don't have enough room

[49:21] really for a sidewalk and things like

[49:22] that. It's very narrow. So, even giving

[49:24] them parking, leaving that is is

[49:27] beneficial.

[49:27] >> Yep. Agreed.

[49:28] >> And we have plenty of room on Oak Park

[49:30] to

[49:30] >> Yeah. there there was a time where we we

[49:33] didn't know if we could fit that parking

[49:34] still in there, but we we made sure to

[49:36] maintain that and provide that back to

[49:37] those those residents that that parking

[49:39] is maintained and the sidewalk is

[49:41] accessible there. And if if it took, you

[49:44] know, taking some right away on that

[49:45] west side, we we would just to be able

[49:47] to fit everything that we wanted in.

[49:50] >> Thank you.

[49:53] >> So that's

[49:55] here we're at Crossing Oak Park. So,

[49:58] we've transitioned away already from

[50:00] that three-lane section that ends kind

[50:02] of at Lake Park and then two lane with

[50:04] some on street parking north of there

[50:07] that continues to the north. And

[50:09] [clears throat] then once you get

[50:12] past the park and Blaine Street, there's

[50:15] a little another half a block and I

[50:18] think was that Cleveland Street where it

[50:20] all goes away and you're back to your

[50:22] typical rule section. Um,

[50:26] and that's what continues to the north.

[50:28] So before I jump into aesthetics and

[50:30] things like that, any other questions,

[50:32] discussion?

[50:34] >> Any other questions, council?

[50:37] >> I just have a quick question. I mean, I

[50:39] understand why you selected the middle

[50:41] section as the first, but

[50:43] [clears throat] why did you select the

[50:46] >> the south segment versus over the north?

[50:48] >> You know, I mean, we could go either way

[50:50] on this one. Frankly, I think the

[50:52] pavement condition already is a big

[50:54] consideration and the safety aspects

[50:56] that are already on that north side

[50:58] where we're really providing a bigger

[51:00] benefit for all those class those

[51:02] categories on that south end. Um so that

[51:05] was that was the driver for for that. Um

[51:08] any of them are opportunities to switch

[51:10] as we need to. Um but that's how we

[51:13] looked at it.

[51:15] So, aesthetics, as Taylor mentioned

[51:17] throughout here, there's and we can get

[51:19] photos or pictures of all this stuff

[51:21] over to you as well, but aesthetics for

[51:23] retaining walls. There's a number of

[51:24] retaining walls on the corridor already,

[51:26] right? There's all shapes and sizes, and

[51:30] there's a lot of different uh options

[51:32] when it comes to that. There's a lot of

[51:33] different costs. It's always my starting

[51:37] recommendation [snorts] that we start on

[51:38] what is more standardized, right? We

[51:40] have a set of standard designs that are

[51:42] out there that are used throughout the

[51:43] states that then a lot of times we can

[51:46] just improve the aesthetics on. Right?

[51:47] If you want to put a form liner or stain

[51:49] or any sort of color, those things are

[51:51] easily added to it. Um, so we've got a

[51:55] lot of sections where we might require

[51:57] anywhere from like a two foot to a

[51:59] three-ft tall wall. A lot of times we

[52:01] can accommodate the with the standard

[52:02] design that has just kind of a a wall

[52:05] that's just integral with that sidewalk.

[52:08] Um, and then there's opportunities to

[52:10] put form liner and facing on that if you

[52:12] want. Otherwise, that's just a standard

[52:14] concrete that's that's part of that

[52:16] sidewalk. You see this a lot of places.

[52:18] A lot of times we don't go anything

[52:20] higher than maybe three feet for this.

[52:23] [snorts] Anything that we get higher

[52:24] than that, then we start looking at

[52:26] different types of block, right? So,

[52:28] there's a big block, there's the smaller

[52:31] block. Um, a lot of times I would define

[52:33] that as being like the small block is

[52:36] going to be eight inches high for each row of blocks and the bigger blocks

[52:41] are 16 to 24 in in height. So, they're

[52:44] kind of double that size.

[52:45] >> So, those are options. Um, I guess one

[52:48] section where we would have this is I

[52:52] guess

[52:52] >> for bid well I mean this would be a good

[52:54] option for bid well.

[52:56] >> Yeah.

[52:56] >> Along there. Um, with this you can put a

[52:58] railing on top because you would you

[53:00] would need to in a fill wall situation.

[53:02] >> Correct.

[53:03] >> Um, but yeah, there's also like Morgan

[53:06] said, there's there's various walls out

[53:08] there. Some of them look fairly new and

[53:09] good condition, there's an option to if

[53:12] we're widening in their area to take that and kind of rebuild it once

[53:16] [clears throat] with what they have out

[53:17] there as well. Mhm.

[53:18] >> Um but I guess is there a council

[53:22] general um I don't know more of

[53:24] aesthetic lean a certain way on on

[53:27] aesthetic for walls or

[53:29] um open to

[53:31] >> and this is this is I would add this is

[53:33] also something that would probably be a

[53:35] really good piece to put out as a public opinion offering. Right. So, um,

[53:40] and maybe I'll jump to that slide really

[53:42] quick here, but from a schedule

[53:44] standpoint, I would say we are we are at

[53:48] a point where I think we're ready to go

[53:50] out to some public offerings for

[53:52] opinions on this and public comment. Um,

[53:54] it's typical that we get that through

[53:56] the preliminary design phase as well.

[53:58] It's just we like to iron out a lot of

[53:59] the big challenges first and then take

[54:02] it out for here are the opportunities

[54:03] where we really want to encourage

[54:05] comment. Um it's been suggested that

[54:08] there's um there's some almost Friday

[54:11] events, there's farmers market events

[54:12] coming up that those are good

[54:14] opportunities where we get actual

[54:15] facetime with the the community members

[54:18] as well as then you'd offer an online uh

[54:21] version where they can come in and step

[54:22] through the project and provide comment

[54:24] throughout there. So, um I would say I

[54:28] know there's one here coming up in maybe

[54:30] a week or two on the 23rd I think of

[54:31] July. um that is probably a little too

[54:34] soon, but there is another one in August

[54:36] coming up as well as then you've got the

[54:39] rest of the season for the farmers

[54:40] market as well. Um so it would be my

[54:43] intent that the city move forward here

[54:46] in the coming months with some public

[54:48] opportunities for comments on the

[54:49] project. Aesthetics would certainly be

[54:51] one of them that we would want to

[54:52] consider. Um but we wanted to offer that

[54:56] opportunity for you guys first tonight

[54:57] on aesthetics. So,

[55:01] back towards that retaining wall stamp

[55:03] standpoint of just, you know, do you

[55:06] like big blocks? Do you like small

[55:08] blocks? You know, is there certain

[55:10] decorative opportunities that we should

[55:12] be taking? I mean, I've seen communities

[55:14] go as far as, hey, we want to honor

[55:17] soand so within the community. We want

[55:19] murals or we want opportunities like

[55:21] that, right? I mean, Musketine has done

[55:23] a great job of honoring its history. um

[55:26] within the center of the roundabouts is

[55:28] going to be another opportunity. What do

[55:29] we want to do at Clay Street? I didn't

[55:31] we didn't think to add that till right

[55:33] now. Um but those are opportunities

[55:35] where we can really put our stamp on it

[55:37] uh from a community aspect. So encourage

[55:39] that feedback. Um you know, if you guys

[55:41] think of things afterwards or guiding

[55:43] systems, get that get that back to us.

[55:47] So I'll step to the bridge quick. Um

[55:51] today it is security fence, chain link

[55:54] fence. Um it's a bridge that is um

[55:57] getting near its useful life and will be

[55:59] replaced with the project. So um that's

[56:03] what's on the east side. Here's what's

[56:05] on the west side where you've got

[56:06] galvanized railing that's there.

[56:09] We talked about the proposed bridge

[56:11] section again already, but here where we

[56:13] would have that that east side trail,

[56:15] west sidewalk, the opportunities are for

[56:18] those barrier rails and ch and fencing

[56:20] on what we would like to do. So we could

[56:24] go back simple with what is there today

[56:26] more or less. Um you can change the

[56:30] color of that simple galvanized simple

[56:32] or galvanized if you want. Um another

[56:36] option that uh I drive by all the time

[56:39] in the Quad Cities actually is up on

[56:41] Veterans Memorial. You cross just east

[56:43] of 74 and there's some aluminum panels

[56:46] that have been cut out there as as one,

[56:49] you know, option. the sky's is the limit

[56:51] when it comes to bridge railing. Um the

[56:55] cost is very very different depending on

[56:58] how far you go. Right? In this case,

[57:00] we're seeing the the experience is the

[57:02] roadway. The experience is the trails

[57:04] and just walking on it. We're not really

[57:05] seeing the structure. We're just seeing

[57:07] the railing and and hopefully crossing

[57:10] safely, right? So, um so this will be

[57:13] another area where we would encourage

[57:16] any sort of feedback that the the city

[57:18] has on that one. um because we want to

[57:20] make sure we incorporate that in there.

[57:23] >> It is helpful when you give us locations

[57:25] like that as we're driving in the quads

[57:26] or Iowa City and stuff and that we can

[57:28] look at it. I mean I look at you know

[57:30] like Clinton has some pretty cool bridge

[57:33] >> they do

[57:34] >> designs but they also have a casino that

[57:36] helps pay for some of that.

[57:37] >> Correct. Correct.

[57:38] >> So but if you can give us like that you

[57:42] know that destination

[57:44] >> by all means. So the consideration that

[57:47] I have through here is again it's it's

[57:49] cost related right um

[57:51] >> here's another one that Taylor's

[57:52] actually been a part of of this

[57:54] structure right where these are still so

[57:56] in bridges we have to keep safety in

[57:58] mind every railing is crash tested and

[58:01] approved somewhere throughout the DOT on

[58:04] a national level anytime we stray beyond

[58:07] that then you have to do crash testing

[58:10] as part of design so we don't want to go

[58:12] that far right it's more of just what

[58:14] can we do to to make this as as pleasant

[58:16] and pretty as we want on the on the

[58:19] roadway. So, this one was, you know,

[58:20] some form liner that was put on those

[58:22] standard concrete barriers with then it

[58:25] looks like this was painted steel

[58:26] railing that was added to it. So,

[58:29] simple, right? But, um, really

[58:31] drastically changes it from just a

[58:33] typical utilitarian type. It's concrete.

[58:37] >> So,

[58:38] >> we'll have to look at the aesthetic

[58:39] throughout the town though, too.

[58:41] >> Exactly. Exactly. So, this is this is

[58:43] one where I would encourage, you know,

[58:47] we maybe we need to just have a

[58:48] dedicated session that talks just about

[58:50] aesthetics there and what we want to put

[58:52] in the center of the roundabout. You

[58:53] know, that's an opportunity for a statue

[58:56] or whatever we would like. Um, you guys

[58:58] have a lot of experience putting that

[59:00] here uh successfully. So, I think those

[59:02] are those are three different areas for

[59:04] aesthetics. We want feedback.

[59:08] We talked about schedule. Um, from an

[59:10] overall standpoint, you know, I would

[59:11] love to see us get the preliminary D

[59:13] design really wrapped up throughout the summer into the fall. Um, I would

[59:19] say we have slowed some. There's been

[59:21] some good there have been some changes

[59:23] here within the city that have caused us

[59:25] to come back and revisit a few things as

[59:28] well as we've really expanded the

[59:30] coordination with MPNW and the utilities

[59:32] to make sure that's all accommodated. So

[59:34] there's some uh I guess slowing that we

[59:36] have had on the project, but we're

[59:38] trying to keep things moving forward at

[59:39] a good pace. As of right now, there's no

[59:42] construction funding, right? So it's a

[59:43] little bit of we don't have to go super

[59:46] fast on anything, but we can ramp up as

[59:48] needed. So I am targeting that we would

[59:51] be able to push that final design

[59:53] through the the later half of this year

[59:55] into early next year and then really

[59:57] push on the construction funding for

[1:00:00] this from a schedule standpoint.

[1:00:02] questions.

[1:00:06] » Mayor, I have two questions if I could.

[1:00:08] >> Yep.

[1:00:10] >> Just on the fir on the first section the

[1:00:13] on the isit approaching Bidwell on the

[1:00:16] inbound. I don't know if you had that

[1:00:18] displayed up earlier or not, but

[1:00:20] currently you've got two lanes of

[1:00:22] traffic there. Inbound approaching

[1:00:23] Bedwell. The right lane or outside lane

[1:00:26] is basically a constant green light for

[1:00:28] going right and the inside lane goes

[1:00:31] straight to towards Hines's entrance.

[1:00:35] Your design currently is that just one

[1:00:37] lane.

[1:00:39] Are we still going to keep that? And I

[1:00:41] mean you say a three lane, but usually

[1:00:42] that middle lane's a turn lane. There's

[1:00:44] no turn there. Are you going to allow

[1:00:46] that middle lane to go straight like it

[1:00:48] is today?

[1:00:50] >> More in front of that parking lot. Is

[1:00:52] that the area there south of Bidwell?

[1:00:54] I think I'm really on the other side of

[1:00:57] that. You know, this is going outbound.

[1:01:00] I'm more concerned on the inbound side

[1:01:02] of Isaac. Approaching Bidwell.

[1:01:04] >> Approaching Bidwell.

[1:01:06] >> Okay. So, approaching Bidwell. Um, it

[1:01:10] would just be a single lane that is

[1:01:13] heading southbound

[1:01:15] there because what we're accommodating.

[1:01:17] >> No, that's that's on Bidwell approaching

[1:01:20] Isa. Still, now we're going to end up

[1:01:22] with basically Park Avenue. And I

[1:01:25] appreciate the time studies, but really

[1:01:26] the only time I consider is 7 to 8:00

[1:01:28] a.m. the noon hour and 4:30 to 6. And I

[1:01:32] think a time study on how traffic would

[1:01:34] flow. I would just shut that inside lane

[1:01:36] down and see how far we back it up

[1:01:38] because that's what we're going to be

[1:01:39] stuck with. We're really going to slow

[1:01:42] traffic down going right from Isaac

[1:01:45] turning on to Bidwell. If that is just

[1:01:47] one lane and sitting behind traffic

[1:01:49] trying to go straight,

[1:01:52] we're going to back cars all the way up

[1:01:53] to

[1:01:54] >> that roundabout. And I think to test

[1:01:56] that, I would just shut that inside lane

[1:01:57] down for a day and see what happens.

[1:01:59] That's a considerate. That's that's a

[1:02:02] heartburn area for me on this project.

[1:02:04] The other heartburn area would be the

[1:02:06] same thing with going outbound on and

[1:02:08] turning on to clay. Currently today,

[1:02:10] there's two lanes heading outbound.

[1:02:12] Right lanes basically green light all

[1:02:14] the time. inside lane is going straight

[1:02:16] out to the bypass. We're now putting

[1:02:18] that to one lane.

[1:02:22] >> I think what you're saying there is uh

[1:02:23] introducing a right turn lane.

[1:02:25] >> I I and I appreciate wanting to keep

[1:02:28] lanes going the way they are because we

[1:02:29] do zigzag kind of back and forth and all

[1:02:31] that, but I don't think we can beat the

[1:02:34] flow of traffic that we have today.

[1:02:37] And it's we're going to slow things down.

[1:02:42] And not only slow, I just think back up

[1:02:44] because really Park Avenue at the lunch

[1:02:48] hour is just really not fun to travel

[1:02:51] on. And I think we're going to make this

[1:02:54] not fun to travel on either.

[1:02:57] >> I think I like

[1:02:57] >> So those are just my concerns to

[1:02:59] consider, you know, talking to the

[1:03:01] community. I think you're going to hear

[1:03:02] a lot about that activity. Uh but you

[1:03:06] know

[1:03:07] and I think we could do time studies by

[1:03:10] shutting lanes down to see how all of

[1:03:12] that looks and how far it backs up and

[1:03:13] is that really what we want to do. So

[1:03:16] >> yeah, we can certainly look uh at adding

[1:03:19] a right turn lane here. I think that's

[1:03:20] what you're saying heading westbound

[1:03:22] northbound on

[1:03:22] >> Bidwell.

[1:03:24] >> And I think we there potentially is room

[1:03:25] to do that. So let's look at that and

[1:03:27] see what kind of uh they call it storage

[1:03:30] length. How many you know cars that we

[1:03:32] could store in that protected right

[1:03:33] turn. Um, so that's that's a good

[1:03:35] comment. So we we'll uh circle back on

[1:03:38] that.

[1:03:38] >> And then your comment is more the north

[1:03:40] northbound is

[1:03:43] going down to just one lane north of

[1:03:45] Clay or the

[1:03:46] >> towards Clay

[1:03:47] >> the Is it to Clay?

[1:03:50] >> I mean you're Yeah, because you're

[1:03:51] inbound your inbound traffic on Isait to

[1:03:54] Clay. You're going to have a turn lane

[1:03:56] in the middle going left, which is fine.

[1:03:57] You're going to have the one lane going

[1:03:58] forward, which is fine. But now we're

[1:04:01] cutting we're cutting that

[1:04:04] other lane, the outbound lane to one

[1:04:06] lane. Uh, and so traffic is going to go

[1:04:09] right and straight on that.

[1:04:12] >> I'm not sure how that going to line up

[1:04:16] >> because that current straight lane is on

[1:04:17] the inside currently today, but now

[1:04:19] you're going to push it to the outside

[1:04:20] and then cars pulling up. We're always

[1:04:23] pulling way up there to see to the

[1:04:25] right. So, I just that's just a concern

[1:04:28] of mine of

[1:04:30] how that outbound traffic on Ice is

[1:04:32] going to be with the with the traffic on

[1:04:34] Clay or uh Lake Park Boulevard. I'm

[1:04:36] sorry. Lake Park Boulevard. My

[1:04:38] apologies.

[1:04:39] >> Now, I'm following

[1:04:40] >> outbound at Lake Park Boulevard.

[1:04:42] >> Clay will be drastically different there

[1:04:43] just with the roundabout uh

[1:04:45] considerations there, right? Um but at

[1:04:48] Lake Park.

[1:04:48] >> Yeah, Lake Park.

[1:04:50] >> Yes. Okay. So, no, at at Lake Park and

[1:04:53] frankly Lake Park adjusting there, you

[1:04:56] do have some opportunities if you did

[1:04:58] want to put a dedicated right turn from

[1:05:00] northbound traffic from Isizit to Lake,

[1:05:03] right? Because that's where we're

[1:05:05] actually vacating part of where that

[1:05:06] roadway is today.

[1:05:08] >> Um, I know it gets a little bit tight in

[1:05:10] this corner with Ultimate Storage. Um,

[1:05:13] there's a lot of coordination there, but

[1:05:15] we can certainly look at what a what a a

[1:05:17] smaller right turn could be

[1:05:19] accommodated. probably our first step is

[1:05:21] just looking back at the traffic data

[1:05:23] that we have today and seeing what level

[1:05:25] of service is provided for that right

[1:05:27] turn movement if we do have some backups

[1:05:29] and storage. So those are areas where we

[1:05:31] can start with getting back with Steve

[1:05:32] and the rest of staff and then uh can

[1:05:34] come back with some report for you guys.

[1:05:37] >> Yeah. And I think to to Matt's point,

[1:05:39] especially during the if you will peak

[1:05:41] travel times for Musketine,

[1:05:43] >> yeah,

[1:05:43] >> you know, during the off times, yeah,

[1:05:45] the traffic flows fairly well, but

[1:05:47] during those peak times, it does get

[1:05:48] tight,

[1:05:49] >> right?

[1:05:49] >> And uh you know, the traffic studies

[1:05:51] overall may look good, but during those

[1:05:53] peak times is what we really need you to

[1:05:55] focus on.

[1:05:56] >> We're Midwest folks. We understand, you

[1:05:57] know, 15 second delay is forever around

[1:06:00] here. Um so we do we do understand that.

[1:06:04] Yeah. And I will say that all this

[1:06:06] design is is based off the AM and PM

[1:06:08] peaks. That's okay. Really focus on. So

[1:06:11] >> yeah.

[1:06:14] » Any other comments?

[1:06:19] » Council member Gordon.

[1:06:20] >> Well, sort of what's our next step?

[1:06:21] Sounds like we need to get the design

[1:06:23] wrapped up. We need to get some voice of

[1:06:24] the customer, the public initiatives

[1:06:27] going and that's like within a couple

[1:06:29] months here. And then we need to

[1:06:34] I mean submit a request to bystate for

[1:06:37] >> bystate will be certainly one of these

[1:06:39] right so I mean you

[1:06:40] >> this project was originally funded under

[1:06:43] raise right which is a federal program

[1:06:45] that's there

[1:06:47] >> there are there have been annual new

[1:06:49] program act you know requests that have

[1:06:52] been out there requests for funding on

[1:06:54] those with the change of administration

[1:06:56] and some of the priorities this project

[1:06:58] did not score as as well as it did

[1:07:01] during the design phase. And so there

[1:07:03] was a a consensus amongst the city staff

[1:07:06] and and the our design team as well. Um

[1:07:10] that at the time it was not recommended

[1:07:11] for the effort that goes into those

[1:07:13] grants because it's not it's not free to

[1:07:15] go after those grants either. There's a

[1:07:17] lot of work that goes into those that at

[1:07:19] that time we weren't going after the

[1:07:20] construction funding and that's what led

[1:07:22] >> recording stopped. that is what led to

[1:07:25] the um breaking up of the project into

[1:07:28] independent utilities so that we could

[1:07:30] go after those multiple pieces. So yes,

[1:07:34] >> keep moving with the design, get public

[1:07:36] comments, make sure that we're designing

[1:07:37] the project that everyone wants while

[1:07:39] keeping budget in mind, right? There's

[1:07:43] only so much that we could take out of

[1:07:44] this to go to a bare bones project,

[1:07:46] right? Versus we still are trying to

[1:07:48] meet the goals of the community.

[1:07:51] So finish up design while trying to find

[1:07:53] construction funding to prioritize this.

[1:07:56] Um that my goal and my hope is that by I

[1:08:01] would say 2028 to 2029 is where we

[1:08:04] really have already obtained our first

[1:08:06] piece of grant dollars if we can. Um but

[1:08:10] any of those grants the most that you're

[1:08:12] going to have is an 8020 split, right?

[1:08:14] So the city still has to work through

[1:08:16] the budget considerations of how we're

[1:08:18] matching with the local piece. Um, and

[1:08:21] so I think there's a lot of good

[1:08:23] discussions to continue in that realm.

[1:08:25] >> Well, maybe the biggest one because we

[1:08:27] have a $2 million grant for design.

[1:08:29] >> Correct.

[1:08:30] >> Do we have a hard date to have this

[1:08:31] completed before we have to return the

[1:08:34] $2 million grant?

[1:08:36] >> There there is. So, your grant agreement

[1:08:39] stipulates that within a 10-year time

[1:08:41] frame from when this was started, which

[1:08:43] was

[1:08:44] >> 22

[1:08:45] >> late of 22, I believe.

[1:08:47] Um so by 2032 we need to be on the road

[1:08:52] to implementation right and so that is

[1:08:55] the goal is that we're moving through

[1:08:57] and my hope was that we already have at

[1:08:59] least one of these phases constructed by

[1:09:01] that time and moving on to the second

[1:09:03] >> because then that shows that we have

[1:09:05] movement and correct they might

[1:09:08] >> correct so

[1:09:08] >> I just that's something that's always

[1:09:09] been out there it's like is that part of

[1:09:11] it and it's we need to have it said out

[1:09:13] loud

[1:09:14] >> yes and and I would encourage that as

[1:09:16] Well, it is it is within your grant

[1:09:18] agreements that you are stipulated that

[1:09:20] this project cannot be a shelf ready

[1:09:22] project and just be kicked down the

[1:09:24] road. You have to move on this within

[1:09:26] that 10 period time 10-year time frame.

[1:09:29] >> So, does city staff push out the

[1:09:30] information to bystate or do you

[1:09:32] >> um how does that work?

[1:09:33] >> It can it can be a collaboration. Uh as

[1:09:36] I mentioned before, the grant agreement

[1:09:38] that is in place that's funding our our

[1:09:40] work today does not allow for us to work

[1:09:43] under that grant to help go after more

[1:09:44] money. Right? So I mean the technical

[1:09:46] pieces are there that are part of it

[1:09:48] whether it's the design the cost

[1:09:49] estimate all those things but we can't

[1:09:51] fill out grant applications for it. So

[1:09:53] that is something that we are prepared

[1:09:55] to certainly support the city in that

[1:09:57] aspect. These are grant applications

[1:09:59] that we work on all the time. We work

[1:10:01] with bystate all the time. Um so I would

[1:10:03] work with city staff to to do that. But

[1:10:06] there probably needs to be a

[1:10:07] consideration that we do have, you know,

[1:10:10] maybe an on call type basis of continued

[1:10:13] support so that we maintain our

[1:10:14] compliance with the grant and not try

[1:10:16] and do grant work under this design

[1:10:18] contract.

[1:10:18] >> So this has to be pushed in within a

[1:10:20] couple weeks basically.

[1:10:21] >> 30th.

[1:10:24] >> Yes.

[1:10:25] >> Okay.

[1:10:25] >> There is there's limitations. Uh yes.

[1:10:29] >> And there's no extensions, nothing like

[1:10:31] that. That is a hard date from bystate

[1:10:33] that by July 31st that they they want

[1:10:36] those applications received um so that

[1:10:38] they can start voting and ranking these

[1:10:40] projects.

[1:10:41] >> Thank you.

[1:10:42] >> I don't believe it's a heavy lift to get

[1:10:44] that proposal submitted to them.

[1:10:48] >> Any other questions, council?

[1:10:51] >> All right. Thank you.

[1:10:53] >> Thank you.

[1:10:53] all.

[1:10:54] >> Thank you.

[1:11:00] » All right. The next item is the public

[1:11:02] hearings on appeals and Kylie, I'll pass

[1:11:05] it on to you.

[1:11:07] >> Thank you.

[1:11:11] » Uh so I'm just going to give a brief

[1:11:14] explanation of the purpose of tonight's

[1:11:16] proceedings and um how we're going to go

[1:11:19] about this. Um, these hearings are being

[1:11:22] conducted pursuant to title 9, chapter 3

[1:11:24] of the Musketine City Code, following

[1:11:28] timely appeals of the city's notice in

[1:11:30] order to abate nuisances issued for the

[1:11:33] properties

[1:11:34] um listed on the agenda. Um, the purpose

[1:11:38] of this hearing is to provide the

[1:11:40] property owners with an opportunity to

[1:11:42] be heard regarding the city's

[1:11:44] determination that the property

[1:11:45] constitutes a nuisance under chapter 9.

[1:11:49] It is important to understand what this

[1:11:52] hearing is and what it is not.

[1:11:54] This is not a hearing regarding

[1:11:57] liability issues, insurance or

[1:11:59] compensation.

[1:12:02] Rather, the issue before council is

[1:12:04] whether based upon the evidence

[1:12:05] presented, the city's notice and order

[1:12:08] declaring the property a nuisance should

[1:12:10] be affirmed, modified, or reversed under

[1:12:13] the city's nuisance ordinance.

[1:12:16] The city issued the notice and order

[1:12:18] after receiving information indicating

[1:12:20] that the buildings present dangers to

[1:12:23] public health and safety due to

[1:12:24] structural conditions. The council's

[1:12:27] responsibility tonight is to consider

[1:12:29] all of the evidence presented by the

[1:12:31] city and any appellants before making

[1:12:34] its decision.

[1:12:36] So tonight we cannot make any decisions.

[1:12:39] Um, we will have evidentiary hearings

[1:12:42] and we will close those evidentiary

[1:12:43] hearings and we will vote and have

[1:12:46] decisions actually made at the next

[1:12:49] council meeting which I believe is next

[1:12:51] Tuesday,

[1:12:52] >> 21st.

[1:12:53] >> Yes, I believe that's correct. Um,

[1:12:57] so

[1:12:59] my thought is because

[1:13:02] um

[1:13:04] a lot of what the city is going to

[1:13:06] present applies to all of these

[1:13:07] properties. I think the city should

[1:13:09] present it its stance first and then

[1:13:12] each of the appellants can get up and

[1:13:14] give their their arguments or hearing or

[1:13:16] their evidence or whatnot, whatever

[1:13:18] they're going to say. Um,

[1:13:21] so I think the city should go first,

[1:13:24] then the city can rebut if it needs to

[1:13:26] [clears throat] at any time, but this is

[1:13:27] basically a hearing um an evidentiary

[1:13:30] hearing at this time. Does anybody have

[1:13:32] any questions? Council members, any

[1:13:35] questions about how this is going to

[1:13:36] work?

[1:13:37] >> No.

[1:13:40] Then I would suggest the city um oh the

[1:13:44] other thing I wanted to say pardon me I

[1:13:46] forgot something else is that we have

[1:13:48] received numerous appeals from numerous

[1:13:51] property owners. Um and although these

[1:13:54] properties are located within the same

[1:13:55] area and some of the evidence is going

[1:13:57] to overlap um each appeal concerns a

[1:14:00] separate property and each needs to be

[1:14:02] considered individually. So each each

[1:14:04] property owner will get a chance to

[1:14:06] speak to today. And when we deliberate

[1:14:09] and vote, you're going to have to do it

[1:14:11] each proper property separately as well.

[1:14:14] >> And that will be next week.

[1:14:15] >> That will be next week.

[1:14:16] >> Okay.

[1:14:16] >> Today we'll we'll close evidence and

[1:14:18] then next week will be deliberation and

[1:14:21] voting. And in the meantime, you can't

[1:14:25] talk about it. You can't get any new

[1:14:27] evidence. It's limited to the evidence

[1:14:29] that's presented tonight. Okay.

[1:14:32] So, I would suggest that you have uh the

[1:14:35] city give its its evidence at this time.

[1:14:39] [clears throat]

[1:14:42] » Nick Morgan from the building department

[1:14:44] here. Um we had a structural engineer

[1:14:48] working with us on the 200 block of East

[1:14:52] Second Street and they noted concerns

[1:14:55] after some building movement. They

[1:14:57] deemed the block structurally [snorts]

[1:14:59] unsafe to occupy. Um, after finding

[1:15:02] that, we had a second opinion, a second

[1:15:06] engineer come in and address those

[1:15:09] concerns. And they also found the block

[1:15:11] to be the north side of the 200 Eastn

[1:15:15] block to be structurally unsafe to

[1:15:18] occupy. Um, that's the quick overview of

[1:15:22] it.

[1:15:25] >> Any questions? Council.

[1:15:29] » Council member Osborne.

[1:15:31] >> What specifically is making the block

[1:15:34] unsafe?

[1:15:36] >> Uh, the

[1:15:39] structural engineer has

[1:15:43] found the foundations in the farthest

[1:15:47] three, the 2011, 203,

[1:15:51] and 205

[1:15:54] uh were of concern. And then because of

[1:15:56] that they are all structurally reliant

[1:16:00] on each other. Um because back then that

[1:16:03] type of construction they built those

[1:16:05] shared common walls and so when there is

[1:16:08] a concern with one they're leaning on

[1:16:10] each other and then there's a concern

[1:16:13] with the adjacent ones. They found

[1:16:16] there's enough concern with all of them.

[1:16:19] And what are structural engineers

[1:16:21] recommending it will take to make the

[1:16:23] building safe again, the block safe

[1:16:25] again?

[1:16:26] >> Uh, currently there is temporary shoring

[1:16:29] plans being made. uh we don't have the

[1:16:34] complete full set of that but the

[1:16:37] recommendation is to temporarily shore

[1:16:40] the buildings there on at 207 I believe

[1:16:46] uh and try and salvage the rest of the

[1:16:49] block from there so that it's stable for

[1:16:54] the already planned demolition of 2011

[1:16:58] and then there will further plans from

[1:17:02] there, but at this time temporary

[1:17:04] shoring is the current plan. It's still

[1:17:06] a little early on in the process.

[1:17:10] >> Is there anything that each since we're

[1:17:12] supposed to con, you know, first of all,

[1:17:15] we're only considering the evidence

[1:17:16] presented here, so I'm asking questions

[1:17:18] in that light. And two, since we

[1:17:21] eventually need to get this down to each

[1:17:23] address,

[1:17:25] is there anything recommended that at

[1:17:27] the address level that can be done that

[1:17:31] any particular building owner can do to

[1:17:33] make their their building safe?

[1:17:37] >> Currently, I don't have any

[1:17:39] recommendations from the engineer at

[1:17:41] this time. Uh it is all I have is the

[1:17:44] structure the temporary shoring for

[1:17:47] those higher priority the the already

[1:17:51] concerned buildings the 2011 205 and

[1:17:54] 203.

[1:17:57] >> Okay. And maybe this is a little

[1:17:59] premature but what is the plan for

[1:18:02] specific things that need to happen at

[1:18:04] each address after the shoring? What

[1:18:08] getting that information to building

[1:18:09] owners? Uh yeah, we we don't have that

[1:18:13] level of detail yet. Um we are talking

[1:18:15] through that, but that we're awaiting on

[1:18:18] further information from the engineer.

[1:18:20] >> A plan is being developed for that.

[1:18:22] >> Yes. Yes,

[1:18:23] >> that's all I have.

[1:18:27] » All right. Any other questions before we

[1:18:29] proceed?

[1:18:30] [clears throat]

[1:18:31] >> Thank you, Nick.

[1:18:33] All right.

[1:18:35] So the first appeal is from Musketine

[1:18:41] Downtown Investors related to an order

[1:18:43] to abate a nuisance property at 209 East

[1:18:48] 2nd Street

[1:18:51] and they can now present.

[1:18:55] They're not. And just like our attorney

[1:18:57] said I have to they have three more

[1:18:59] buildings so we have to go go through

[1:19:00] the same thing.

[1:19:03] The next building is again by Musking

[1:19:06] Downtown Investors related to an order

[1:19:08] to abate a nuisance property at 211 East

[1:19:11] Second Street.

[1:19:13] And I know they're not here. And then

[1:19:16] the next one is also for Musketine

[1:19:18] Downtown Investors

[1:19:20] related to an order to abate a nuisance

[1:19:22] property at 221 East Second Street.

[1:19:28] And they're not here right now. And then

[1:19:30] we have another written appeal for

[1:19:32] Musking downtown investors, the last one

[1:19:34] which is related to an order to abate a

[1:19:36] nuisance property at 223 East Second

[1:19:39] Street.

[1:19:41] And they are not here tonight. So next

[1:19:44] we have a written appeal from Matt

[1:19:47] McFaden related to an order to abate a

[1:19:50] nuisance property at 227 East 2nd

[1:19:53] Street.

[1:19:54] Is Matt here tonight?

[1:19:58] As she just stated, my name is Matt

[1:20:00] McFaden. I'm the owner of MTMM LLC,

[1:20:03] which owns the building at 227 East

[1:20:05] Second Street. And I'm going to try to

[1:20:07] keep this quick and not try I know it's

[1:20:09] not a debate or anything. I just got a

[1:20:11] few things I'd like to say. Um, starting

[1:20:13] out, if the demolition down at the end

[1:20:15] of the block was done correctly, I don't

[1:20:17] believe this condemnation of my building

[1:20:18] and the rest of the block would have

[1:20:20] even occurred. My building has been

[1:20:21] standing for 150 years and I believe it

[1:20:24] will continue to stand for many decades

[1:20:26] more if not forced to be demolished by

[1:20:28] the city which is obviously still one of

[1:20:30] your guys's options.

[1:20:32] Um I believe if you look at my building

[1:20:34] by itself it is not substandard or

[1:20:37] unsafe. I have my own walls on both

[1:20:39] sides of the building and more

[1:20:40] importantly my foundation while not

[1:20:42] perfect is still safely supports my

[1:20:45] structure although it does obviously

[1:20:47] need some minor maintenance done. And

[1:20:48] now for my kind of the appeal part. The

[1:20:51] generic letter that was posted on

[1:20:52] everyone's building at the beginning of

[1:20:54] this whole ordeal claims a structural

[1:20:56] engineer has examined the buildings and

[1:20:58] determine that one a crumbling

[1:21:00] foundation two horizontal foundation

[1:21:02] cracks three significant bowing of

[1:21:04] foundation walls, four a potential risk

[1:21:06] of collapse. The biggest issue is at the

[1:21:08] time of this posting ruling, my building

[1:21:11] hadn't even been inspected by a

[1:21:12] structural engineer. It also has none of

[1:21:15] those specific uh issues previously

[1:21:17] mentioned. While I won't argue and say

[1:21:19] my building foundation is perfect since

[1:21:21] it's literally 150 years old, it doesn't

[1:21:24] have any of those specific issues that

[1:21:26] were used to condemn the building. I

[1:21:28] sincerely believe you could tear down

[1:21:29] the buildings on both sides of me and my

[1:21:32] building would stand just fine on its

[1:21:33] own since I have my own walls on both

[1:21:35] sides and my own foundation.

[1:21:39] Uh, so it's not fair to use possible

[1:21:41] issues in other buildings down the block

[1:21:43] as an excuse to call mine unsafe. If it

[1:21:46] were still allowed, I would still be

[1:21:47] living inside of my apartment there,

[1:21:49] running my business out of the

[1:21:51] commercial first floor there, and I

[1:21:53] would feel completely safe sleeping at

[1:21:55] night and not worried about it

[1:21:56] collapsing. I just wanted on record that

[1:21:58] I disagree with the determination that

[1:22:00] my building has substandard conditions

[1:22:01] and is unsafe to occupy and deserves to

[1:22:03] be condemned with no actual structural

[1:22:05] issues observed just assumed with this

[1:22:08] building located at 227 Eastn Street.

[1:22:11] >> Thank you, Matt.

[1:22:12] >> No problem.

[1:22:16] » The next is a written appeal from

[1:22:18] Samantha Kaufman

[1:22:21] related to an order to abate a nuisance

[1:22:23] property at 229 East Second Street.

[1:22:27] Hi, Samantha.

[1:22:28] >> Hi, Samantha Kaufman here. Um,

[1:22:30] representing 229 East 2nd Street,

[1:22:33] appealing the evacuation order that was

[1:22:35] based on 629. My reasons are the

[1:22:38] following. On June 29th, the building

[1:22:40] was declared unsafe to occupy. That

[1:22:43] immediate decision displaced tenants,

[1:22:45] interrupted businesses, and caused

[1:22:46] significant financial harm to owners,

[1:22:48] tenants, and the businesses affected.

[1:22:50] Since that day, we have repeatedly

[1:22:53] requested engineering reports,

[1:22:55] inspection findings, structural

[1:22:56] evaluations, or any kind of

[1:22:58] documentation that formed the basis for

[1:23:01] declaring 229 East Second Street unsafe

[1:23:04] to occupy. Three and a half weeks later,

[1:23:06] we are still waiting. We have not

[1:23:07] received a single document of stating

[1:23:09] anything. Tonight, I'm asking the

[1:23:11] council to answer some simple questions.

[1:23:14] What engineering reports, structural

[1:23:16] evaluations, inspections, or any

[1:23:18] documented findings have existed on or

[1:23:21] before June 19th that justified this

[1:23:24] emergency evacuation? And two, if this

[1:23:27] decision was based on the condition of

[1:23:29] the affected buildings that were being

[1:23:32] demolished, where are the reports

[1:23:33] pertaining to the rest of the block?

[1:23:35] These are not unreasonable requests.

[1:23:37] When the government decides to exercise

[1:23:39] emergency authority to remove people

[1:23:41] from their homes, their businesses, and

[1:23:42] properties, the affected owners do

[1:23:44] deserve to know the factual basis for

[1:23:47] the decision. And then I Why, after

[1:23:49] three and a half weeks and repeated

[1:23:51] request are these reports still not

[1:23:53] being provided to any of us? The city's

[1:23:55] own July 9th press release states

[1:23:57] additional safety issues have been

[1:23:59] identified during inspections. So, if

[1:24:02] that's true, what are those issues? When

[1:24:04] were they identified? and why have those

[1:24:06] findings not been provided to all the

[1:24:08] affected owners? I'm asking for

[1:24:10] transparency, accountability, and if

[1:24:13] reports exist on, before, or after June

[1:24:16] 19th that justified an emergency

[1:24:18] evacuation of 229 building, please

[1:24:20] release them to the owners. If these

[1:24:22] reports do not exist on June 19th

[1:24:25] before, after, or during, then the

[1:24:27] public just deserves to know that as

[1:24:28] well.

[1:24:30] The information used to justify one of

[1:24:32] the most extremes actions of the

[1:24:33] government can take is forcing people

[1:24:36] from their homes, their businesses

[1:24:38] should not remain unavailable to

[1:24:40] everyone a month later. I respectfully

[1:24:42] ask that any reports that have been

[1:24:45] compiled be released immediately to

[1:24:47] every affected property owning owner and

[1:24:49] this is the reason for my appeal. We

[1:24:50] have not received a single word as to

[1:24:52] the reason we've been deemed unsafe to

[1:24:55] occupy.

[1:25:00] Thank you, Samantha.

[1:25:02] And next is a written appeal from Terry

[1:25:05] Maul related to an order to abate a

[1:25:09] nuisance property at 219 East Second

[1:25:11] Street. Welcome, Terry.

[1:25:13] >> Hi. You guys know who I am. Uh I like I

[1:25:18] said before, I've lived in that building

[1:25:19] 35 years

[1:25:21] and no one's inspected that building. So

[1:25:23] how can you say get out?

[1:25:30] Sam eloquently said what all of us feel.

[1:25:33] You know we want to see reports. We want

[1:25:36] to see the paperwork.

[1:25:39] Are we going to see it?

[1:25:44] So you guys are not going to answer any

[1:25:46] questions.

[1:25:49] This is an evidentiary hearing and they cannot answer questions. It's your

[1:25:53] time to give evidence, sir.

[1:25:56] >> Will they ever answer questions?

[1:25:59] The public wants to know why you're

[1:26:01] doing this. Destroying people's lives.

[1:26:03] My life savings is in that building

[1:26:08] and you're destroying my life.

[1:26:11] You better come up with something.

[1:26:20] Thank you, Terry.

[1:26:22] Next is a written appeal from KN&R LLC,

[1:26:26] Kevin Phillips,

[1:26:28] related to an order to abate a nuisance

[1:26:31] property at 217 East Second Street.

[1:26:34] >> I won't be redundant. I just was

[1:26:37] curious. uh we have filed with an

[1:26:39] insurance company and we need documents

[1:26:42] to you know provide to them.

[1:26:45] >> Can you repeat that first part please?

[1:26:48] >> What what did you say about

[1:26:49] >> insurance?

[1:26:50] >> Okay. We just need documents

[1:26:53] for them and I won't be redundant

[1:26:56] because they pretty much said everything

[1:26:58] I need to say, but it just uh

[1:27:02] need to get a plan.

[1:27:06] [clears throat]

[1:27:08] Thanks, Kevin.

[1:27:17] All right, we have a written appeal from

[1:27:19] James Zikerman related to an order to

[1:27:21] abate nuisance property 207 East 2nd

[1:27:25] Street. I don't see

[1:27:30] I do not see James here at all.

[1:27:36] right.

[1:27:40] So now that will be the close closing of

[1:27:42] the evidentiary hearing. Um we will the

[1:27:45] council should take it under advisement

[1:27:47] at the next council meeting and put all

[1:27:49] of these properties to a vote whether to

[1:27:51] modify, affirm or deny.

[1:27:56] >> Just have a question of procedure.

[1:27:57] >> Yes.

[1:27:58] >> Uh you said only the stuff that was

[1:28:00] presented here today counts.

[1:28:02] >> Yes.

[1:28:03] >> Does that include the written statements

[1:28:05] by folks that did not show up today?

[1:28:09] >> Sure. What's in our meeting? Okay. In

[1:28:11] their appeals.

[1:28:12] >> Yes.

[1:28:12] >> Okay.

[1:28:16] » All right. So, we'll be deliberating

[1:28:18] next week

[1:28:19] >> and voting yes

[1:28:20] >> and voting on Tuesday. Okay.

[1:28:24] >> All right. Council member Gordon, is

[1:28:26] there anything you like to share

[1:28:27] tonight?

[1:28:27] >> Nothing tonight. Thank you.

[1:28:29] >> Council member Osborne?

[1:28:30] >> Nothing tonight.

[1:28:32] >> Councilman Connard?

[1:28:35] >> Nothing tonight. Mayor, thank

[1:28:37] >> Councilman Lewis. Nothing tonight,

[1:28:39] mayor.

[1:28:39] >> Council member Lampy.

[1:28:40] >> Nothing tonight.

[1:28:42] >> Council member Brockert.

[1:28:43] >> Nothing tonight, your honor.

[1:28:44] >> Council member Gindrich.

[1:28:47] >> Cinda,

[1:28:48] city administrator.

[1:28:49] >> Yes, sir.

[1:28:50] >> Well, I'd like to uh congratulate Rich

[1:28:53] Clims, Director Rich Clims, for his

[1:28:55] retirement over the past uh 30 years of

[1:28:58] experience here at the city of

[1:29:00] Musketine, and just wish him luck on his

[1:29:02] retirement. He's done a lot of great

[1:29:04] things for our community. So, thank you,

[1:29:06] Rich. And I will take a motion to

[1:29:09] adjurnn.

[1:29:09] >> So move, Gordon.

July 14th, 2026, - Muscatine City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript