Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project Alignment Study
D~
~ck~
MEMORANDUM
October 27,2004
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Results of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
In December of 2001, the City Council formally adopted the Drainage Basin Master Plan
prepared by HDR Engineering. Based on the study, approximately 1,150 homes and
businesses in the Bee Branch watershed are at risk of flood damage. The Drainage
Basin Master Plan recommends several capital improvement projects that would reduce
the threat of flood damage. They are the Carter Road Detention Basin, expansion of
the West 32nd Street Detention Basin, and an open waterway from the 16th Street
Detention Basin to 24th Street. The open waterway project represents the restoration of
the Bee Branch Creek and has been termed the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project.
In February 2002, City staff presented the Drainage Basin Master Plan at a Washington
Neighborhood Council meeting. Due to the concerns voiced by residents, the City
Council separated the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project into two individual
projects: Phase I, between 16th Street and Garfield Avenue and Phase II, between
Garfield Avenue and 24th Street and delayed final approval of the Phase II component.
On December 16, 2002, the City Council authorized the solicitation of proposals from
engineering firms to conduct the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project Alignment
Study. Moreover, they appointed Charles Winterwood of the Long Range Planning
Advisory Commission to serve as the chairperson of the Bee Branch Citizen Advisory
Committee to be formed as an integral part of the study.
On March 17, 2003 the City Council approved the Request for Proposals for the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration Project Alignment Study. The study was to include the
following:
1) Establish the optimum alignment for the proposed open waterway along its
approximately 4,500-foot length (from 16th Street detention basin to 24th and
Elm Streets) based on existing environmental, utility, social, and economic
constraints;
2) Provide a preliminary design to a level that it establishes:
a. What the waterway will look like at different locations along its entire
length;
b. How the waterway will function before, during, and after rainstorms of
different magnitudes; and
3) Work with impacted residents in the form of a citizen's advisory committee to
ensure that the recommended alignment location and waterway design are
based on input from the neighborhoods impacted by the proposed open
waterway.
In August 2003, the City Council established a Citizen's Committee to give input on the
alternative alignments and preliminary designs for the open waterway.
On May 17, 2004, the City Council held a work session on the results of the process up
to that point and reaffirmed the commitment to the Bee Branch Creek Restoration
Project as an open waterway, and supported the alignment for Phase II of the project
from 24th Street to Garfield Avenue proposed by a unanimous vote of the Citizen's
Committee. The City Council still had some question about the route to be chosen from
Garfield to the 16th Street Detention Basin.
The Engineering firm hired by the City for this part of the process, CDM, has completed
the conceptual work, including preliminary design, related to the design of the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration Project and Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Gus
Psihoyos is recommending inclusion of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project
Phase II from 24th Street to Garfield Avenue as part of the approved Drainage Basin
Master Plan.
While preliminary design of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project is part of this final
report from CDM, the City Council is not being asked to address this issue tonight. The
preliminary design will be the subject of a future City Council work session. This
preliminary design information is included in the information given to you for this
discussion so you are aware of what design criteria was used to establish the revised
cost estimates.
Should the City Council approve the inclusion of Phase II of the Bee Branch Creek
Restoration Project from 24th Street to Garfield Avenue in the Drainage Basin Master
Plan, a funding plan must also be agreed to so implementation of the project can begin.
Keeping the project on a 1 O-year construction schedule (with 8 of the 10 years
remaining for completion by 2013) the revised cost estimate, including a factor for
inflation, for both phases of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project from 24th Street
to the 16th Street Detention Basin is $31,763,672. This would bring the cost of
implementation of the entire Drainage Basin Master Plan, including the open waterway,
to $38,694,949.
The City Council has not supported the concept of an underground sewer to pipe the
water from 24th Street to Garfield Avenue. Had that been the selected option, the cost
estimate is $49,263,745, which would bring the cost estimate of the total Drainage
Basin Master Plan to $55,834,109.
Financing the cost of the $38,694,949 Drainage Basin Master Plan will take a
combination of revenues from the Dubuque Racing Association and an increase in the
monthly Stormwater Fee. The impact on the Stormwater Fee is further complicated by
the fact that the Dubuque Racing Association did not receive a back tax payment from
the State of Iowa when their lawsuit was settled. The DRA funds and the Stormwater
Fee revenues would be used to retire general obligation debt, a variance from previous
funding plans. Debt is being used so this project can be completed in a reasonable
time-frame, while the costs are spread over a long period of time. The City will also
continue to pursue federal grants.
The recommended Stormwater Fee to implement the program to protect over 1,150
Dubuque properties from stormwater flooding is to leave the current $1.29 per month
fee in place until the end of this fiscal year. At the beginning of Fiscal Year 2006, July 1,
2005, the monthly fee would rise to $1.79. This increase to $1.79 has been mentioned
in the past as the impact of not receiving a back tax payment from the State of Iowa
when the DRA lawsuit against the State was settled. At the beginning of Fiscal Year
2007, July 1, 2006, the monthly fee would rise to $2.00. The fee would then rise 25Ø a
year until Fiscal Year 2013, when it would reach $3.50 a month, and continue at that
rate until Fiscal Year 2032. These funding projections assume that approximately $35
million of DRA revenues will be dedicated to implementation of the plan.
The preliminary design of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project will be the subject
of a future work session, including a decision on an east or west alignment for the
project from Garfield Avenue to the 16th Street Detention Basin. The actual funding
mechanism will be decided by the City Council during the Fiscal Year 2006 budget
process. However, it is important that you are aware of the design issues and the
funding mechanisms that I will be recommending, so they are included in this report.
I respectfully request Mayor and City Council approval of inclusion in the Drainage
Basin Master Plan of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project Phase II from 24th
Street to Garfield Avenue, including the alignment previously recommended
unanimously by the Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee.
I also request that a work session be scheduled to review the preliminary design of the
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project.
ilL (~L I {{'V) ;~ VJ~
MictÝael c. Van Milligen
MCVM/jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Gus Psihoyos, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer
Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer II
Bee Branch Creek Citizens Advisory Committee
D~~~E
~<Æ~
MEMORANDUM
October 25, 2004
TO:
FROM:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Gus Psihoyos, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer. Ÿ;j ,Q
SUBJECT: Results of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to outline the results of the Bee Branch Restoration
Alignment study, address the recommendations of the Bee Branch Citizen Advisory
Committee (BBCAC), and present Engineering staff's recommendations pertaining to
the Drainage Basin Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
In December of 2001, the City Council formally adopted the Drainage Basin Master Plan
(DBMP) prepared by HDR Engineering (Omaha, NE). Based on the study,
approximately 1,150 homes and businesses in the Bee Branch watershed are at risk of
flood damage. The DBMP recommends several capital improvement projects that
would reduce the threat of flood damage. They are the Carter Road Detention Basin,
W. 32nd Street Detention Basin, and an open waterway from 16th Street to 24th Street.
The open waterway project represents the restoration of the Bee Branch/Couler Creek
and has been termed the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project.
City staff prepared a Fiscal Year 2003 Capital Improvements Program budget that
included the three projects. In addition, staff recommended that the City Council
appropriate funds to conduct a study to determine the alignment of the Bee Branch
Creek Restoration Project from 16th and Sycamore to 24th and Elm. Such a study would
identify where the waterway would be built and identify what properties would be
impacted.
In February 2002, City staff presented the DBMP at a Washington Neighborhood
Council meeting. Many of the approximately 150 meeting attendees voiced opposition
to the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project because it would result in the removal of
approximately 70 homes - drastically impacting their neighborhood.
Due to the concerns voiced by residents, the City Council separated the Bee Branch
Creek Restoration Project into two individual projects: Phase I, between 16th Street and
Garfield Avenue and Phase II, between Garfield Avenue and 24th Street.
Page 1 of 18
Phase I only impacts two homes and mostly vacant commercial property in the vicinity
of the old packing plant. Currently, the elevated railroad tracks east of Elm and south of
Garfield block the flow of stormwater from the North End and Washington Street
neighborhoods. Phase I will eliminate the railroad track dam.
Because Phase II involves the acquisition of approximately sixty-eight homes, the City
Council removed it from the DBMP. However, it would remain under consideration
pending further study. The Fiscal Year 2003 Capital Improvement Program budget
adopted by the City Council included $250,000 to hire an engineering firm to work with
the impacted residents to try and find an alternative solution that would not have such a
significant impact on the neighborhood.
In August of 2002, the City Council approved the RFP for the Bee Branch Watershed
re-study. Seven firms responded with proposals. Each, having reviewed HDR's work as
part of the proposal process, reaffirmed that the existing Bee Branch storm sewer falls
far short of current design standards. In essence, there is no small fix to the flooding
problems. Therefore, in October of 2002, the City Council decided that a re-study was
unnecessary and Phase II of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project deserved a
more detailed look.
On December 16, 2002, the City Council authorized the solicitation of proposals from
engineering firms to conduct the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study.
Moreover, they appointed Charles Winterwood of the Long Range Planning Advisory
Commission to serve as the chairperson of the Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
to be formed as an integral part of the study.
On March 17, 2003 the City Council approved the RFP for the Bee Branch Creek
Restoration Alignment Study. The study was to include the following:
1) Establish the optimum alignment for the proposed open waterway along its
approximately 4,500-foot length (from 16th Street detention basin to 24th and
Elm Streets) based on existing environmental, utility, social, and economic
constraints;
2) Provide a preliminary design to a level that it establishes:
a. What the waterway will look like at different locations along its entire
length;
b. How the waterway will function before, during, and after rainstorms of
different magnitudes; and
3) Work with impacted residents in the form of a citizens advisory committee to
ensure that the recommended alignment location and waterway design are
based on input from the neighborhoods impacted by the proposed open
waterway.
On May 19, 2003, the City Council approved the selection of Camp Dresser & McKee
(CDM) with WHKS and Conservative Design Forum (CDF) to provide engineering and
design services for the study.
Page 2 of 18
In August of 2003, the City Council established the roster of the Bee Branch Citizen
Advisory Committee (BBCAC). The BBCAC will provide input to CDM with regard to the
social and economic concerns and needs of the impacted neighborhoods, help
establish the criteria to be used to evaluate alternative alignments/preliminary designs
for the open waterway, and ultimately make a alignment/preliminary design
recommendation to the City Council. Collectively, the sixteen-member committee was
made up of impacted Bee Branch watershed residents, impacted property owners,
senior citizens, a local parishioner, local PT A member, a developer, a State
representative, and a Dubuque Board of Realtors member.
Between September of 2003 and June of 2004, the BBCAC convened six times. The
topic of each meeting is presented below. A copy of meeting presentations and Bee
Branch Alignment Study Newsletters can be found in Appendix C and Appendix D
respectively of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study report, henceforth
referred to as the "Report."
On March 30th, 2004 the BBCAC co-hosted a public meeting at Fulton Elementary
School that included an open house, project background presentation, question &
answer period, and public input session. Approximately seventy (70) citizens attended
the meeting. It proved to be beneficial to the citizens, BBCAC, CDM and City staff as
the atmosphere was highly conducive to providing citizens with the information they
sought and providing the BBCAC, engineers, and City staff a better understanding of
citizens concerns.
A City Council work session was held on May 1ih, 2004. BBCAC "preliminary"
recommendations were presented. They were:
#1
Recommendation passed bva 12-yea to 3-nay vote
"The BBCAC recommends that the Council identify funding to construct
the Pipe Alternative as the preferred alternative. The BBCAC prefers the
Pipe Alternative because it preserves neighborhood accessibility,
presents fewer health and safety risks, and enhances the quality of life."
#2
Recommendation failed by a 7-yea to 8-nay vote
"The BBCAC would accept the Open Channel solution as opposed to
doing nothing provided the Council has pursued timely, adequate and
comprehensive funding for the Pipe Alternative."
At the work session, individual BBCAC members presented their personal thoughts
about the study and potential solutions to the flooding problems. Although the BBCAC
recommended a closed pipe solution between Garfield and 24th Street, the consensus
from the City Council was that City staff and the City's consultant should proceed with
the study as previously directed: provide a preliminary design for the open waterway
that establishes what it would look like and how it would function.
Page 3 of 18
In June of 2004, the BBCAC formulated eight recommendations. They were presented
to the City Council in a letter dated June 30, 2004 from BBCAC Chairperson Charles
Winterwood (see attachment).
As recommended by the BBCAC, the City Council re-established a building permit
moratorium in July of 2004, based on the alignment preferred by the BBCAC. The
moratorium is set to expire July 1, 2005.
In September of 2004, additional recommendations were presented to the council in a
letter dated August 30th, 2004 from a collection of eight BBCAC members (see
attachment).
DISCUSSION
Based on City Council feedback from the May 17th work session, City staff and the
City's consultant CDM resumed the study with the original objectives. As stated above,
they are:
Establish the optimum alignment for the proposed open waterway along its
approximately 4,500-foot length (from 16th Street detention basin to 24th and
Elm) based on existing environmental, utility, social, and economic
constraints and
Provide a preliminary design to a level that it establishes:
a. What the waterway will look like at different locations along its entire
length and
How the waterway will function before, during and after rainstorms of
different magnitudes.
Work with impacted residents in the form of a citizens advisory committee [the
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee] to ensure that the recommended
alignment location and waterway design are based on input from the
neighborhoods impacted by the proposed open waterway.
CDM presented the findings of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study to
City staff; a copy of the Report is attached.
1.
2.
b.
3.
Optimum Alianment
Figure 1 depicts the alignment preferred by a unanimous vote of the BBCAC and
presented to the City Council in the letter from BBCAC Chairperson Charles
Winterwood. Mr. Winterwood's letter also indicated that the BBCAC was comfortable
allowing the City and CDM to determine the best alignment south of the railroad tracks,
specifically, east or west of the old packing plant.
CDM determined that both alignments are technically feasible and both would provide
the same level of flood protection. A cost comparison shows that the two alignments are
similar. However, there are costs associated with three unknowns that make the east
alignment unfavorable.
Page 4 of 18
Figure 1. Alignment preferred unanimously by BBCAC members presented to the City
Council in the letter from BBCAC Chairperson Charles Winterwood.
N
A
0 250 500 750 1000 Feet
~-'-----'--~ ----,
Legend
('J
Bee Branch Mainlne
ExistngBuildings
0
Delention Basins
Channel Alignment
N Canterlna
N Edge of Construction I Buffarlone
0 Culvert Connection
Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
of Dubuque, Iowa
One unknown is the potential outcome of negotiations with the owner of the packing
facility. While both alignments would require the acquisition of a portion of the old
packing facility grounds, the east alignment would necessitate the partial demolition of
the main building. A second unknown is the level of soil contamination linked to the
abandoned wastewater treatment lagoon and the costs to deal with the contamination.
The east alignment would necessitate the acquisition of the lagoon. Finally, a
culvert/bridge for 16th Street under US 151-61 is required for the east alignment, the
cost of which will be escalated due to an increase in regulatory oversight and
construction complications.
Because of the unknowns associated with the east alignment that could drastically
increase the project cost, CDM recommends the alignment west of the old packing plant
henceforth referred to as the "preferred alignment" (see attached Figure No. 5-1).
Property Impacts
The BBCAC and CDM recommend the preferred alignment primarily because it best
met the top three criteria established by the BBCAC: preserve commercial & non-
commercial services, minimized residential property acquisitions, and minimize the
project cost. The preferred alignment would impact sixty-five (65) residential homes
and fifteen (15) non-residential buildings (see attached Figure 5-6).
On fifty-seven (57) of the eighty properties, total acquisition and demolition would be
required. On the other twenty-three (23) properties, a house or building is not
impacted; an easement or partial property acquisition may be all that is required. There
are an additional fourteen (14) properties without structures that would also be
impacted.
Preliminary Desian
The goal of the preliminary design was to advance the open channel concept by
addressing: what the open channel would look like, how it would function, its impacts to
the street system, cost of the project; its impacts to public utilities, its impacts to
historical structures, and preliminary geotechnical & environmental concerns.
Representation of the Bee Branch Creek
CDM provided a visual representation of what the restored creek could look like based
on their cost estimate (see attached Figure 5-2). Figure 2 below highlights the
components of a typical reach of the proposed creek.
The 150 to 180-foot wide project corridor would consist of a 15 to 25-foot wide low flow
channel, a 60 to 70-foot wide flood channel bottom, a 30-foot wide channel side-slope
section, and a 15-foot wide overbank area.
Meandering through the flood channel bottom, the low flow channel would have sides
approximately four feet high made of cut quarry stone (preferred by the BBCAC) and a
bottom constructed of articulated block matting. Quarry stone would provide the desired
creek bank stability with an appearance approaching that of a natural creek. Articulated
Page 6 of 18
block matting was chosen because it effectively balances aesthetics, functionality, and
cost. Its use will also minimize the cost of future maintenance.
Although the specific landscaping plan will not be known until the final design, the
preliminary design calls for a mixture of taller prairie and ornamental grasses with a
mixture of wildflowers to make up the balance of the relatively flat flood channel bottom.
Turf grass will likely make up the majority of the 4-foot horizontal to 1-foot vertical (25%)
channel side-slopes.
Besides the landscaping described above, the preliminary design includes landscaping
in the overbank area that would consist of medium to high canopy trees such as ash,
maple, or birch trees; bushes; planters as shown in Figure 2 near the bridge; light
fixtures; benches; and the incorporation of the Heritage Trail through the area. Cost
estimates include adequate funding to construct bridge structures with a rustic stone
appearance similar in pattern to local limestone outcroppings.
Figure 2. Elements of CDM's Representation of the Bee Branch Creek.
Functionality of the Bee Branch Creek
Due to the natural springs throughout the Bee Branch Watershed, groundwater will
constantly feed flow to the Bee Branch Creek. Along with this normal dry weather flow,
the low flow channel would contain flows produced during light rains. On average, rains
will cause the water to rise above the low flow channel twice each year. The Mississippi
River stage will also affect the depth of water in the low flow channel.
During the design storm, 4.1 inches of rain in two hours, the peak velocity in the center
of the creek would be just less than 5.5 miles per hour (8 feet per second). Velocities
near the creek bank would be much lower, less than 1.5 miles per hour (2 feet per
second).
Page 7 of 18
Impacts to Street System
The preliminary design addresses the impacts to adjacent streets, they are:
1. Elm Street between 22nd and 24th Street would be abandoned;
2. Pine Street between 16th Street and 19th Street would be abandoned;
3. 15th Street east of Sycamore Street would be abandoned;
4. Lincoln Avenue north of Kniest Street would be closed to through traffic;
5. Garfield Avenue north of Kniest Street would be closed to through traffic;
6. Maple Street between 15th and 16th Street would be closed to through traffic;
7. Cedar Street between 15th and 16th Street would be closed to through traffic;
8. Kniest Street between Garfield and 22nd Street would be reconstructed as a one-
way street with parking on one side; and
9. A new one-way street (Prince Street?) would be constructed between Lincoln
Avenue and Rhomberg Avenue to maintain traffic to and from Audubon School.
Included in the preliminary design and the associated cost estimate are bridge
structures at 22nd Street, Rhomberg Avenue, 16th Street, and Sycamore Street. 24th
Street will also remain open. Attached Figure 5-4 shows some of the changes to the
street system and attached Figure 5-5 shows the bridge structures included in the
preliminary design of the Bee Branch Creek.
During the study, Tony Zelinskas of WHKS & Co and Civil Engineer II Deron Muehring
met with representatives of Dubuque Community Schools (DCS) to discuss the potential
impacts to Audubon School. To some degree, they liked the idea of closing Lincoln
Avenue at Kniest to reduce the use of Lincoln Avenue as a through street, even
suggesting that Lincoln Avenue could be a one-way street. However, through traffic
must be maintained for vehicles picking up and dropping off students. Therefore, a new
street between Lincoln Avenue and Rhomberg or between Lincoln Avenue and 22nd
Street was discussed. Audubon representatives did not state a clear preference, but
indicated that either would adequately address the needs of the school. As indicated
above, the preliminary design includes a new street between Lincoln and Rhomberg.
The implications of closing Garfield Avenue at Kniest Street were also investigated.
After comparing recent and historic traffic volume data, the conclusion was that while
Rhomberg could handle the additional traffic, improvements to the Windsor and
Rhomberg intersection might be necessary. City Engineering would monitor the
intersection and make appropriate improvement recommendations.
Estimate of Probable Cost
From the initial conception of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project, through the
planning stages, and into the preliminary design the cost estimate for the project has
evolved. Table 1 outlines each estimate that has been produced, for what purpose it
was produced, and how it differs from the previous estimate.
Based on 2004 dollars, CDM's estimate for the restoration of the Bee Branch Creek is
$26,983,247. It includes: property acquisitions, utility relocations, creek construction,
street construction, bridges, landscaping, and amenities (see Appendix P of the Report).
Page 8 of 18
Table 1. Evolution 0 t e cost estlma e or e ee ranc ree es ora Ion rolec.
Project Reason for Revision Revised Cost
Original conceptual estimate (HOR 1999) $17,100,000
Bee Branch Creek
Restoration from 16th As budaeted bv City staff - FY06 to beyond 08 $18,029,000
Street to 24th Street
As outlined in the financial scenario used by Cily staff to
establish the stormwater utility fee and required stormwater $20,892,931
funding. Scenario was based on an 8-year Bee Branch
project starting in FY06 and finishing in FY13. Estimated
project cost was increased based on anticipated inflation.
Planning level estimate produced by COM (March 2004).
Some of the reasons that the estimate exceeds the original
HOR estimate are:
1. COM used 2004 prices versus HOR's 1999 prices
(+$3.4 million)
2. COM estimated $150K for commercial properties. HOR
estimated $1O0K. COM included a contingency on
property acquisitions. HOR did not. (+$1.53 million);
3. HOR estimated the need to excavate 160K cubic yards.
COM estimates that it will require 240K cubic yards. $29,800,000
One reason for this is that HOR assumed a 33% slope
on each side of the open waterway. Following a study
of the soils, COM determined that a 25% slope is
required for bank stability. (+$3.8 million); and
4. HOR assumed a natural (soil) channel bottom. COM
designed a revetment system resistant to scour and
erosion. (+$0.5 million).
Planning level estimate refined by COM (May 2004) to
reflect the preferred alignment. In addition, further $25,000,000
investigation of material unit prices allows for a lower
continaencv.
Estimate produced by COM (August 2004) based on the
preliminary design. Consulting Services for the acquisition of
80 properties was added (+$600,000) and an additional $26,983,247
structure to maintain traffic flow between 14th and 16th Street
along Sycamore Street was added (+$1.1 million). Estimate
includes $660,000 for amenities and aesthetic
enhancements.
City staff estimate for the project if it is initiated in FY05 and
completed in FY2011. Estimate assumes a 3% inflation $30,333,845
rate. Estimate includes an additional $401,000 for an
increase in the level of amenities.
City staff estimate for the project if it is initiated in FY05 and
completed in FY2013. Estimate assumes a 3% inflation $31,763,672
rate. Estimate includes an additional $401,000 for an
increase in the level of amenities.
f h
t f
th B
B
hC
k R t
r
P .
Page 9 of 18
Again, the cost of everything pictured in Figure 2 and attached Figure 5-2 is included in
CDM's estimate for the open waterway.
Other Preliminary Desiqn Considerations
Another major goal of the preliminary design is to identify and address as many
difficulties to avoid roadblocks as the project moves forward. CDM's cost estimate
includes money to relocate water mains, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers. The most
significant utility conflict is the gravity sanitary sewer at 24th Street. The preliminary
design assumes that this sewer must be reconstructed from 24th Street to Garfield
Avenue. Potential conflicts with private utilities were also investigated. Discussions with
Aquila, McLeod USA, Media Com, and Alliant Energy revealed that there is no major
priyate utility infrastructure impacted.
Citizen Concerns
The third, but equally import aspect of the study was the collection of input from
impacted citizens. Action by the City Council, regardless of the direction, will impact
hundreds of citizens. While there are disagreements as to the cause of the flooding
problems and how they should be addressed, almost all comments reflect the feeling
that something must be done. Citizens have voiced their own inner struggle between
getting something done as soon as possible and waiting to see what the other
improvements will bring or studying the problem further. Some believe that simply
keeping the existing Bee Branch sewer and W. 32nd Street detention basin clean will
solve the problem. Or, the construction of the Carter Road detention basin and the
improvements to the W. 32nd Street detention basin will solve the problem. Everyone
can agree that keeping existing drainage facilities operating at peak efficiency will help.
However, two nationally recognized water resource engineering firms, HDR and CDM,
have concluded that even with a clean Bee Branch and after the detention basin
improvements, flooding problems will persist. It will just be a matter of how often and
when.
Concerns specific to the open waterway concept and project in general are outlined
below:
1)
Many citizens assert that an open waterway is unsafe for children.
Two things are included in the preliminary design to address this issue. First, the
channel side-slope was decreased from 33% to 25%. Secondly, the design calls for
longer prairie grasses in the channel bottom on each side of the low flow channel,
creating a natural barrier to keep children out of the creek.
When the heavy rain fell in 1999, a tornado warning prompted people to be in their
basements. Hundreds of these basements filled with stormwater, some to the
rafters, creating a significant risk of drowning or electrocution as electrical boxes,
water heaters, and furnaces became inundated. Those rainstorms produced runoff
two to four feet deep, rushing down streets into storm sewers. The open waterway
addresses these existing risks.
Page 10 of 18
2)
Mosquitoes and West Nile Virus is a concern.
Due to the natural springs throughout the Bee Branch Watershed, groundwater will
constantly feed flow to the Bee Branch Creek. Therefore, standing water should not
be an issue. However, the conditions would be monitored. If a problem did arise, an
inexpensive larvacide could be used.
3)
Another concern raised is that the creek will attract rodents and other pests or
it will just be a ditch full of trash.
Besides the capital cost to construct the Bee Branch Creek, City staff understands
the need for its maintenance. City staff will recommend increasing the annual
funding for stormwater management faculties to ensure adequate maintenance of
the Bee Branch Creek.
4)
Citizens are obviously concerned about the possibility of having to move and
just how the whole relocation process would impact them.
Once the preferred alignment is adopted by the City Council, all impacted property
owners can be identified. City staff recommends the use of the property acquisition
and relocation process authorized by the City Council for the W. 32nd Street
detention basin project. Besides establishing the "fair market value" for a property,
the process requires that the City locate a comparable home and pay the
homeowner the difference between the "fair market value" of the citizen's home and
the value of the comparable home. There will be no need for the homeowner to seek
bank financing as a result of the relocation process. A similar process would be used
for renters.
5)
The length of time required to acquire properties and construct the creek is
another concern. Many people have voiced their desire for something to be
done soon because they are weary of dealing with the flooding conditions. In
addition, once a property is labeled for acquisition a property owner's options
will be limited.
Originally, the plan was to begin property acquisitions in FY06 and finish the project
in FY13. City staff has prepared a revised funding plan that includes property
acquisitions starting in FY06 and ending in FY09. Creek construction would take
place starting in FY09 and finishing in FY13.
Citizens are concerned that the open waterway will impact the neighborhood
connectivity.
North of Garfield Avenue, the preliminary design includes crossings at 22nd and 24th
Streets as well as Rhomberg Avenue. In addition, the design includes the
reconstruction of the Heritage Trail between 22nd Street and 24th Street and
extending it south to Garfield. Amenities included in the cost estimate such as lights,
park benches, and plantings along the path could make the creek a meeting place
for neighbors.
6)
Page 11 of 18
As noted previously, the preliminary design includes a bridge at Sycamore Street to
maintain vehicular traffic around Dupaco and the Smithfield site.
Initial BBCAC Recommendations
During the study, the BBCAC asked CDM to evaluate multiple alternatives such as the
open channel, additional upstream detention basins, a bigger Bee Branch storm sewer,
sustainable "green" solutions, stormwater pumping, and various improvements to the
existing sewers. After considering the relative costs, ability to solve the problem, and
practicality of the potential solutions, the committee narrowed its sights to two
alternatives: the open waterway concept first proposed by HDR Engineering and an
open channel/closed conduit combination.
At the end, the BBCAC found themselves debating the pros and cons of the open
waterway proposed by HDR and the combination of an open waterway and
underground sewer. Both would provide a stormwater drainage system that meets
current design standards.
The combination open waterway/closed conduit alternative consists of a relief sewer
from 24th & Elm to Garfield and an open waterway from Garfield to the 16th Street
detention basin. The relief sewer portion would consist of two (2) underground pipes
ranging between 10-foot high by 28-foot wide and 10-foot high by 42-foot wide. This
option would require the acquisition of 58 houses and 16 businesses. Table 2 provides
a cost estimate for the open waterway/closed conduit alternative.
In August, the City received recommendations from the BBCAC in a letter from BBCAC
Chairperson, Dr. Charles Winterwood. A discussion of each follows.
Table 2. Estimated cost of combination open waterwaY/closed conduit alternative.
Project Reason for Revision Revised Cost
Bee Branch Creek
RestoratiDn from 16th Original planning level estimate produced by COM $42,000,000
Street to Garfield (March 20041.
ANO Planning level estimate refined by COM (May 2004).
Further investigation of material unit prices decreased the $41,000,000
Bee Branch Sewer estimate and allowed for a smaller continQencv.
Reconstruction from
Garfield to 24th Street City staff estimate for the project if it is initiated in FY05
and completed in FY2013. Estimate assumes a 3% $49,263,745
inflatiDn rate.
Closed Conduit Recommendation
After considerable debate, the BBCAC recommended the open waterway/closed
conduit alternative because it "preserves neighborhood accessibility (and) presents
fewer health and safety risks." A discussion on these issues was included above. Based
on estimates for the 10-year funding plan presented in Table 1 for the open waterway
and Table 2 for the closed conduit/open waterway, the open waterway/closed conduit
Page 12of18
alternative would cost approximately $17,500,073 more than the open waterway
alternative.
Erosion Control Ordinance Recommendation
To underscore its importance, the BBCAC recommended the adoption of an erosion
control ordinance, knowing that the current City Council has identified it as a priority and
federal NPDES regulations require it. City staff fully expects that an ordinance will be
adopted and enforcement will begin during the summer of 2005.
Multi-jurisdictional Watershed Planninq Recommendation
The BBCAC recommended multi-jurisdictional watershed planning for watersheds that
reach across jurisdictional boundaries. City staff agrees with this course of action. While
the Bee Branch Watershed is entirely within the city limits, the City of Dubuque has in
the past teamed with the county to alleviate flooding near Flexsteellndustries.
Best Manaqement Practices Recommendation
Members recommended "the City encourage Best Management Practices for runoff
reduction for development and redevelopment." In March of 2003 the City Council
endorsed the creation of an ordinance to promote the use of stormwater BMPs as part
of the City's NPDES stormwater permit.
Additional BBCAC Recommendations
The City received in a letter from eight BBCAC members in September with additional
comments and recommendations. A discussion of each follows.
Purpose of the BBCAC
In August of 2002, City staff was under the City Council's direction to hire a consultant
to restudy the Bee Branch watershed. Forming a citizen committee to help produce
alternatives to the open waterway was to be a facet of that study. However, in October
of 2002 the City Council decided against the restudy, citing that the restudy would most
likely only serve to delay the implementation of the solution to the flooding problems.
The City Council then authorized a Request for Proposals that clearly defined the
consultant's role and they were presented at the first BBCAC meeting. They were:
1. Establish the optimum alignment for the proposed open waterway along its
approximately 4,500-foot length (from 16th Street detention basin to 24th and Elm)
based on existing environmental, utility, social, and economic constraints;
2. Provide a preliminary design to a level that it establishes:
a. What the waterway will look like at different locations along its entire
length and
How the waterway will function before, during and after rainstorms of
different magnitudes; and
3. Work with impacted residents in the form of a citizens advisory committee [the
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee] to ensure that the recommended
alignment location and waterway design are based on input from the
neighborhoods impacted by the proposed open waterway.
Page 13 of 18
b.
"Hidden" Costs Associated with the Open Waterway
A detailed cost estimate for the open waterway can be found in Appendix P of the
Report. Unit prices were estimated based on published data, similar flood control
channel projects, and direct discussions with vendors.
Exaqqeration of the Closed Pipe Estimate
Attached is a copy of the planning level cost estimate for the open waterway and closed
pipe alternatives. Licensed Professional Engineers from a nationally recognized
engineering consulting firm produced the estimates.
Accelerated Timetable for the Eleven DBMP Proiects. Some Behind Schedule
Of the eleven projects referred to, only the W. 32nd Street detention basin is included in
the Drainage Basin Master Plan (DBMP). The City Council established the funding in
Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006 with construction to take place in 2006. The project
remains on that timetable.
Optimize the Bee Branch Sewer
While it is true that improving the Bee Branch storm sewer would be less costly than the
open waterway and it would displace fewer families, it would not be more effective. At
the third BBCAC meeting in January, the BBCAC dismissed pipe efficiency
improvements as a viable solution to the flooding problems.
Common Sense Solutions Identified in the Article Beyond Flood Control
The article presents several stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are
being studied in Milwaukee, WI. They include green roofs, pervious concrete, rain
gardens, and rain barrels. The letter asserts that the BBCAC was not allowed to explore
these ideas. However, these very ideas were discussed at the second and third BBCAC
meetings. At the third meeting, the BBCAC dismissed them as a potential solution to the
existing flooding problems.
As the article points out, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) is
studying these BMPs to "help prevent flooding that could come from future growth."
According to Kevin Shafer of MMSD, "If they work, we are confident others will use
them too."
The City has explored these types of practices. Staff members have listened to Urban
Conservationist Wayne Peterson of the U.S. Department of Agriculture expound on the
benefits of "green" solutions. And as mentioned previously, the City Council has
endorsed the creation of an ordinance to promote the use of stormwater BMPs as part
of the City's NPDES stormwater permit.
Use of Porous Pavement
According to the U.S. EPA, the use of porous pavement is "highly constrained, requiring
deep permeable soils, and restricted traffic." This would limit its use in Dubuque to the
flats. And many of the homes that sustain flood damage in the Bee Branch watershed,
and throughout Dubuque, experience basement flooding because of existing
groundwater conditions.
Page 14 of 18
Incentives to Use BMPs
Incentives already exist for commercial properties. Because the stormwater utility fee is
based on the area of impervious surface, installing a green roof or a parking lot with
pervious pavement would reduce the impervious area and thus reduce the stormwater
utility fee for the property. However, City staff will investigate ways to promote the use of
these BMPs as part of the City's NPDES stormwater permit. Cost sharing programs or
incentives will be considered.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the results of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study,
Engineering recommends revising the adopted Drainage Basin Master Plan to include
the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project from 16th Street to 24th Street along the
alignment preferred by the BBCAC and recommended by CDM.
I also recommend that the DBMP projects are funded and constructed in the original 1 0-
year period starting in Fiscal Year 2004 and ending in Fiscal Year 2013.
BUDGET IMPACT
Following the adoption of the DBMP, the City Council adopted the FY 2003 to FY 2008
Capital Improvement Program budget; It included funding for the Carter Road detention
basin, the W. 32nd Street detention basin, culvert and channel improvements for the
North Fork Catfish Creek watershed, and the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project.
The formation of a stormwater utility fee was to help finance the projects.
In the spring of 2003, the City Council adopted the funding scenario we are currently
operating under, one that includes revenue from the stormwater utility.
As outlined in Table 1, the project cost for the Bee Branch Creek project has evolved.
Adequate funding for the project is not provided for in the current funding scenario.
Based on the preliminary design and a 10-year funding plan, the cost estimate for the
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project from 16th Street to 24th Street is now:
Property & ROW Acquisitions
Construction
Construction Contingency
Engineering & Design
$ 8,700,000
$18,232,152
$ 1,823,215
$ 3.008,305
$31,763,672
Total Project Cost
Therefore, the revised cost estimate to fund the DBMP with the open waterway in the
original 10-year period is $38,694,949. Table 3 outlines the evolution of the cost
estimate for the DBMP based on the revised estimate to construct the open waterway in
the original10-year period.
Page 15 of 18
Tab
Ie 3. Evolution of DBMP project costs with revised open waterway estimate.
FY03 FY04 FY05
DBMP Project Estimate Estimate Estimate
1 O-year Plan
Carter Detention $875,000 $875,000 $875,000
W. 32n° Detention $4,023,000 $4,023,000 $4,036,000
NF Catfish Improvements $1,548,000 $1,548,000 $1,659,364
Bee Branch Creek $18,029,000 $18,054,000 $31,763,672
(16th to 24th)
TOTALS $24,475,000 $24,500,000 $38,694,949
NOTE: An 8-year funding plan would result in a DBMP project cost of $37,265,122.
Table 4 outlines the evolution of the cost estimate for the DBMP with the estimate to
construct the closed conduit/open waterway alternative recommended by the BBCAC in
the original 10-year period. The cost estimate to fund the DBMP with the closed
conduit/open waterway in the original10-year period is $49,263,745.
Table 4. DBMP project estimates with closed conduit/open waterway alternative
reco
mmended by the BBCAC.
FY03 FY04 FY05
DBMP Project Estimate Estimate Estimate
10-year Plan
Carter Detention $875,000 $875,000 $875,000
W. 32nu Detention $4,023,000 $4,023,000 $4,036,000
NF Catfish Improvements $1,548,000 $1,548,000 $1,659,364
Bee Branch Creek $18,029,000 $18,054,000
(16th to 24th) -
Bee Branch Creek
(16th to Garfield) & $49,263,745
Closed Conduit
(Garfield to 24th)
TOTALS $24,475,000 $24,500,000 $55,834,109
As the cost estimates have evolved (increased), so to has the strategy to fund the
improvements. The original plan first introduced with the Fiscal Year 2003 budget called
for funding the DBMP with GO Bonds and State or Federal Grants. The current funding
strategy adopted along with the stormwater utility and Fiscal Year 2004 budget calls for
the combination of DRA revenue, Utility Fee revenue, and GO Bonds; It approaches a
"pay-as-you-go" funding option. Because the cost estimate for the Bee Branch
restoration has increased, two new funding options presented herein call for issuing GO
Bonds to pay for the DBMP and using DRA and Utility Fees to retire the debt.
Page 16 of 18
It should be noted that under the current funding plan, DRA revenue and Utility revenue
are also used to fund six activities besides the DBMP. In Fiscal Year 2004 they totaled
$581,000 and they are escalated at 2.5% each year thereafter. The programs are:
Administration of the Stormwater Utility, NPDES Compliance Program, Storm Sewer
Improvements/Extensions, Stream-bank Stabilization Assistance Program, Detention
Basin Maintenance, and Stormwater Ditch Maintenance & Remediation. The DRA
funding levels and the Utility Fee rates shown below reflect this fact.
Table 5 outlines the original stormwater utility SFU rate and compares it to the current
rate and the recommended rate to fund the open waterway and the other DBMP
projects. Table 6 outlines the required stormwater utility SFU rate if the closed
conduit/open water way alternative is included in the DBMP. In both scenarios
approximately $35 million in DRA revenue are projected to be dedicated to the
implementation of the DBMP.
Table 5. Stormwater Utility SFU Rate Comparison for the Original, Current, and
Recommended 10-year Project Funding Scenario for the DBMP that Includes
th 0 W
e Jpen aterway.
Years. Years Years Years
1 - 5 6 - 10 11-15 16-20
Plan FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14-18 FY19-23
FY03-13 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
(Oriainal)
FY04-13 $1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.81
(Current)
FY04-13 $1.29 1.79 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.50 3.50+
(Proposed)
.Utility was established in FY04
+Rate would continue until the debt is retired in 2032.
NOTE: To fund the 8-year DBMP project schedule, the rate would gradually increase
similar to the 10-year, peaking at $4.41 in FY11. The rate would then gradually decline
to $3.30 in FY15 and remain around $3.30 until FY29.
Table 6. Required stormwater utility SFU rate required to fund the 10-year DBMP
. 'f
protects I the closed conduit/open water way alternative is included.
Years. Years Years Years
1 - 5 6 - 10 11-15 16-END
Plan FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14-18 FY19-32
FY04-13 $1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.81
Current)
FY04-13 $1.29 1.89 2.10 2.74 3.44 4.10 4.49 5.39 6.03 5.88'" 5.06+
(Proposed)
.Utility was established in FY04
"'Five-year average
+Average rate, debt is retired in 2032.
Page 17 of 18
Attachments
Prepared by Deron Muehring
CC: Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Dawn Lang, Budget Director
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Bill Baum, Director of Economic Development
David Harris, Director of Housing & Community Development
Ken TeKippe, Finance Director
Don Vogt, Operations & Maintenance Manager
Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer II
Jerelyn O'Connor, Neighborhood Development Specialist
Long Range Planning Advisory Commission
Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
CDMIWHKS
Page 18 of 18
N
+
500
0
500 Feet
_",5"
Souxes.. Dubuque Area Geographic 'nlbrma,on Systems (DAGtS), da"d May 2000
ÕU~~E.
~c/k~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
PREFERRED CHANNEL
ALIGNMENT
I CI:II\II I DATE.. SEPT. 2004
FIGURE No. 5-1
"1-
\
'<)
<;,
N
+
SDurces: Dubuque Area Geographic Ink"ma'on S)'>tems (DAGIS). dated May 2000
D{;~~E:
~~~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
CROSSING
STRUCTURES
500
500 Feet
COM
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE No. 5-5
Cul-de-sac at
Garfield Avenue
Elrn Street (24th to 22nd)
Lincoln Ave
Garfield Ave
Pine Street
Maple Street (16th to 15th)
Cedar Street (16th to 15th)
N
+
$(Jurees: Dubuque Area Geographic InbnnaDon Systems (DAGtS), dated May 2000
DU'~~E:
~cÆ~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
STREETS AND
ROADWAYS
500
500 Feet
CDIVI
DATE: SEPT, 2004
FIGURE No, 5-4
>-
0
::0
ti
"'e-
Wz
Ww
e;~
Ie.?
~~
c?Z
",0
tiJ~
"'0
ti
¡¡J
--I
W
Zf-
Zo..
«W
:CO
Oz
zO
wO
0..
0
N
.;,
0
Z
W
'"
::0
e.?
¡¡:
.,.
0
A
e-
o.
W
<J)
~
'"'OIYD 03,..
~òS,..
300
N
+
--~~
300 Feet
~- =
Legend
Impacted PrDperties
Acquired - Structure Impacted
Acquired - Lot Reducüon
'Ó~;~
\\ ,);6"'
~ß"""\
Sou"'o8_- Dubuque Area Geographic/nfbnnaUon Systems (DAGIS), claM May 2000,
D~,
~<k~
CDM
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
PROPERTY
ACQUISITION
DATE: SEPT- aJO4
RGURE No- 5-6
June 30, 2004
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4864
Subject:
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project
Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee Recommendations
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Over the course of the past ten months the Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee (BBCAC) has
met six times with City staff and the City's consultant to discuss the Bee Branch watershed drainage
problems and evaluate alternatives and alignment options. The objectives of the BBCAC were to:
Establish the optimum alignment;
Provide input on what the waterway will look like and how it will function; and
Select an acceptable solution which reflects the overall desire of the community
AIi!!nment Recommendation
By unanimous vote, the BBCAC has established the preferred alignment (see attachment) as starting
just north of the intersection of 24th Street and Elm Street and proceeding southeasterly along Elm
Street to 2200 Street, where the alignment runs parallel to and on the north side of Kniest Street. The
alignment continues southeasterly until it crosses the IC&E railroad. Downstream of the railroad, there
are two" alignment options: Alternative alignment 2 (west and south of the meat packing facility); and
an alternative alignment suggested by a Council member (north and east of the old Dubuque Packing
Company /FDL buildings).
The BBCAC is comfortable with City staff evaluating and selecting the optimum alignment between
the railroad and the 16th Street Detention Basin. The BBCAC's preferred alignment is to the north and
east of the "Pack" unless cost, environmental, or future development considerations make this
alignment less advantageous as the previously selected alignment to the south. The BBCAC preferred
alignment would have less impact on residences and existing local services. The BBCAC deferred the
alignment decision to City staff.City staff and the Consultant anticipate being able to make a
recommendation on this portion ofthe alignment within 2 months.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
June 30, 2004
Page 2
Moratorium Recommeudation
While City staff and the Consultant are evaluating this alignment alternative, the BBCAC recommends
that a moratorium be established for both alignments until July I, 2005. Once the evaluation of the
lower alignment has been completed, the moratorium should be revised to reflect the final preferred
alignment.
Drainal!e Improvement Recommendation
The BBCAC met on June 24, 2004 to review and evaluate the preliminary recommendations presented
to the City Council at the May 17, 2004 Work Session. There was considerable discussion about the
impacts of the open channel solution compared to the high costs of the pipe solution. The BBCAC
voted 8-6 to make the previous recommendation "final". Note that the previous vote, prior to the City
Council work session, was 12-3. The recommendation is as follows:
"The BBCAC recommends the Council identify funding to construct the Pipe
Alternative as the preferred alternative. The BBCAC prefers the Pipe Alternative
because it preserves neighborhood accessibility, presents fewer health and safety
risks, and enhances the quality oflife."
Minority Drainal!e Improvement Recommendation
The minority recommendation was made given the understanding that the pipe solution is preferred but
may not be affordable for the City. Something must be done to address this problem and the open
channel alternative is a better option than doing nothing. The minority recommendation ITom the
BBCAC is as follows:
. "The pipe alternative was preferred but the open channel alternative should be constructed if
the pipe alternative is deemed too expensive."
Construction Timetable Recommendation
The preferred Bee Branch drainage improvement should be constructed as soon as possible.
Erosion Control Recommendation
The BBCAC recommends that the City Council enact an Erosion Control Ordinance.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
June 30, 2004
Page 3
Multi-jurisdictional Watershed Mana!!ement Recommendation
The BBCAC recommends that the City pursue comprehensive multi-jurisdictional watershed
management planning for the drainage basins that across jurisdictional boundaries.
Runoff Reduction Best Mana!!ement Practices Recommendation
The BBCAC recommends that the City encourage Best Management Practices for runoff reduction for
development and redevelopment within the City.
In general, the BBCAC agreed that there is a pressing need for something to be done with the Bee
Branch and that the City must give it a high priority. The BBCAC recognizes that the final decision on
the Bee Branch rests with the City Council, but feels that it is in the best interest of the community to
resolve the ongoing health and safety risks that exist with the culTent flooding situation.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Council in resolving this major issue that affects the City of
Dubuque.
Very tru! y yours,
(l-¡~~t.~~ ~.j
Charlie Winterwood
Chainnan
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Ene: . Preferred Alignment Site Plan- 6/24/2004
cç: BBCAC Members
CDM
Gus Psihoyos, City Engineering
-
August 30, 2004
To: Dubuque City Council
Mayor Terry Duggan, Council members Nicholson, Michalski, Buol, Cline, Connors,
and Markham
As members of the Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee (BBCAC), we want to
thank you for giving us an opportunity to be involved in our government. Original1y, the
purpose of the BBCAC was "to produce alternatives and improvements to the Bee
Branch that were agreeable to the impacted residents and to arrive at a plan we could
call our own." (Storm Water Management Update, Aug. 7, 2002). The role Dfthe
Committee, however, was changed. It was clear that CDM was hired tD convince
Committee members that an open ditch through the middle Df a century old neighborhood
was the only viable solution. On a 12-3 preliminary vote and a 8-6 fmal vote, the
BBCAC supported a pipe rather than an open ditch, if it was deemed an absolute
necessity. We believe the cost difference between an open ditch and underground pipe
have been exaggerated since there are many "hidden" CDsts associated with the ditch that
have nDt been factored into the cost estimate. We also believe the cost of the pipe has
been exaggerated. Clearly, ifthe BBCAC would have been able to fulfil1 its original
intent, the final recDmmendations would have been much different than those submitted.
That's why we're writing.
1. We support an accelerated timetable tD bring the eleven projects included in the
Drainage Basin Master Plan (DBMP) to completion. We believe these efforts wil1
dramatical1y reduce the amount of water flowing into the north end neighborhoods
from the hillsides. We've already noticed a difference with the completion Dfthe
Carter Road basin. Unfortunately, a number Dfthese projects are behind schedule.
2. We believe that in addition to the cDmpletiDn of the DBMP, effective erosion
cDntrollconservation measures need to be enacted and enforced throughout the entire
watershed. It would require cooperation and agreement among all levels oflDcal
government SD that Dne county-wide, cDmprehensive plan would be used.
3. We encourage the Council to seriously consider making the current Bee Branch
function at 100% capacity by straightening it DUt. The curves and angles reduce its
capacity considerably. We believe this option will displace fewer families and will be
more effective and less costly than the open ditch or pipe.
4. We support the commDn sense, cost-effective sDlutions that are outlined in the
enclosed article, Beyond Flood Control, Stormwater (March/April). These ideas
have not been ful1y explored by the City, nor were we allowed tD do so in our 6
committee meetings. These solutions include: porous concrete, frequent street
sweeping in high traffic areas to keep debris from clogging the stDrm sewer, green
roofs, rain gardens, and rain barrels.
Of the numerous flood prevention projects detailed in this article, porous concrete rises
to the toP. In fact, mOT, alDng with Iowa State University will be testing porous
CDncrete next year. Porous concrete, at peak efficiency, handles rain up to 4 in./minute;
even at 60"l'u efficiency, it handles rain up tD 4 in.lhour, or the equivalent of a 100-
year storm. Furthermore, porous pavement areas provide infiltration for adjacent
impervious areas. A typical ratio is 5:1 impervious area to pervious (5 acres to 1
acre). The porous design also has good pollutant-removal properties. Studies have
shown that porous pavements hold up as well or better than conventional asphalt in most
environments in low-traffic areas, and the cost is comparable to that of conventional
asphalt. Please see the enclosed article Porous is Better, Stormwater (Sept/Oct).
We strongly support testing porous concrete by using it to replace city sidewalks, parking
lots, and low traffic intersections. There are a number of construction prDjects Dn the
table, including a new downtown school and community center that could be test sites. If
porous CDncrete proves to be as successful in Dubuque as it has in Milwaukee and Dther
cities, it should become part of our building code.
Please consider eannarking a percentage of the storm water utility fee to incent citizens to
use porous concrete, purchase rain barrels, plant rain gardens, and construct green roofs
on public and commercial buildings. The program cDuld be administered similar to
Alliant Energy's rebate program for energy efficient appliances which requires contractor
certificatiDn and proof of purchase. Please see the attached addendum prepared by
Wayne Klostermann. We believe the current storm water utility fee would support a
rebate prDgrarn of this nature. However, if we are in error, a $0.10 per month increase
would generate sufficient funds.
We IDDk forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Rita Brothers
Impacted homeo.wner, Elm Street
Audrey Morey
Impacted resident, North End
Neighborhood Assn. Secretary
Pam Jochum
State Representative, impacted resident
Richard Sullivan
Past Chairperson, Dubuque Soil
& Water Conservation District;
Vice President, North End
Neighborhood Assn.
Sue Denlinger
Impacted homeowner, Washington Street
Wayne Klostermann
North End Neighborhood Assn. Representative, impacted resident
Faith Kramer
Impacted homeowner, Washington Street
Frank Miller
Professor of Physics (retired, Loras College)
CI ofD"b" '"
Bo, B""h AJI "menl AJI,inell'..
Enclö.ed Channel (Railroad to 24th Street)! 0 en Channel (16th Street Detention to Railroad)
!tom 51" Unll Unit Cool Qoontit !tom Cool -- Noto
G,"e,,'
EACH , $100,000.00 58.0 $ 5,aOO,000
!
EACH $1SO,OOO.OO 16.0 $ 2,400,000
NO
SF
UtiUtie.
Flb..O U,Comm"nloation IF $4.00 36SO.0 $14,GOO.00
Wal..mal"
Dlam".. In,ne. 6 IF $45.00 1350.0 $60,750.00
B IF $45.00 150.0 $6,750.00
10 IF $50.00 200,0 $10,000.00
12 IF $55.00 2500 $13.7SO.00
20 IF $125.00 2000 "',000,00
Sanna Sow.. IF
Dlametor ',,"'e'l B IF $45.00 1100,0
- +- 12 IF $55.00 200.0
30 LF.n $125.00 200.0
36 IF $150.00 950.0
42 IF $17500 1100.0
Se"He Sower Manhole- 4ft NO $2,700.00 11
5ft NO $2,700.00 g
Storm S,w..
Dlamel.. '"has 15 IF SOO.O $30,000.00
IB IF $0.00
24 IF 16.0 $1,600.00
30 IF no $9,3aO,00
36 IF $0.00
4B IF $0.00
54 IF IBO.O $40,SOO.00
60 IF $0.00
72 IF B.D ..
a4 IF a.o $3,960.00
6',3'HE IF 0.0 $0.00
Storm S,w.. Menhol.. 4ft NO $1,500.00 $0.00
5ft NO $2.100.00 $0.00
Storm S,w..Cal,h Ba.ln/lnle" NO $1,BOO.OO 12 $21,GOO.00 A.."m, 4 ,.. """ ",..In, 3
Storm Sower FES
15 NO $9,
24 NO
30 NO $3
54 NO
72 NO
84 NO
O,er"ed UIm"e, IF
Nal",,'Gas
Dlam"er In"'e, IF $1800 $0.00
IF $24.00 $0.00
IF $30,00 $0,00
IF $36.00 $0.00
Ele"",
BES Sire" U "tin LF $6.00 $33,300.00
Misc. Comm"nloa"on IF $0.00
Gene",
P"m In
Chen"" dow",rin : lS $BO,OOO.OO 4.0
Slorm 'ow.. lS $25,000.00 4.0
T"m,C".ol
le,,' Clo."" , DAV $35.00 600.0 2 300 De,. ",h
Roed Clo."ral DAY $1000 1800.0 6 300 De,. ,soh
E".lonCo".ol ' lS $50,000.00 4.0 Aseom, 4 contra,"
SUBTOTAL
A
"""'m,".E,,"""""'~""'~
,.,of."
Co,"""' Cole
Me""m/li ht
H.. Ripeap
Q"a Slooa
Top"iI
See""
Roccea'," Path A, halt
in'he,
Grand Subtotal
Construction Contin enc
Channal
O,ee"n"
Sod
SV
SV
SV
SV
Cy ---
Cy
Cy
SV
SV
SV
TON
TON
CV
SY $1.25 21305.1
SV $0.50 32651.7
SV $5.00
SV $15.00 2466.7
SUBTOTAL
SY 16066.8
SV 713.3
LF .- 1320.0
SY 391898
CV 170348.9 --
Cv 18927.7
Cv
----eAÏ 260.0
LF 10000.0
CV 94095.0
CV 7022.2
SV
CV 328A
28 LF 500.0
36 LF 4460.0
42 LF 6000
WK 10.0
WK 10.0
TON
SV $35.00 120792
LF $12.00 6646.0
SV $54.00 344OA
LF $150.00 452.0
SV $80.00 3822.2
LF $100.00 1320.0
CV $20.00
SY $0.50
SUBTOTAL
20%
En ineerin I Cons\. Mn m~ Admin! Permittin
15%
Grand Total
A
C,.E"m....E"cl"""~"«I"'"
$213,651.00
$0.00
$0.00
$29,065.al
$999,900.00 Amme .. 90% or total
$I,047,965.59-","me..1O%oftotal
$0.00
$21,833.33
$83, .12
$11, .20
$201,768.01
$0.00
$26,631.38
$16,325.86
$37,000,00
$000 .
3.896.578
$60,333.94
$3,566.67
$19,800.00
$19,594.91
$1,703,469.33 -"",me a, 90% oftotal, RR i,,1 ab"e
$652A68.07 -"",me.. 10% oftotal, RR i,,1 ab"e
$0.00
$195,000.00 A""me RR pile '"pport, (4 ft OC)
$I65,000.00-"s"mtionforRRcro"ing
$801,10793
$1,75S,555.56
$0.00
$147,776.67
$0.00
$600,000.00
$7,269,800.00
$1,200,000.00
$600,000.00 A,,"me minim"m 10 ,et "PS
$500,000.00 A,,"me 50 ""ita fwk
$0.00 A""me ",en'" with ,tNd"cel baddilt (,ee ab"el
$0.00
$422,772.78
$79,752.00
$185,784.00
$67,800.00
$305,777.78
$132,00000
$0.00
$0.00
16.917.460
30,433,268
6.086.654
5.477.988
1$
41,997.910
""'.'
D"b"a"e Bee Branch Cost Estimate
Ass"m tlons ma want to combine with Backuo Cal", paael
- -.
Incl"da Conversion Rates, Depths of Excavation, etc. --
,
ID No. Cost Item IAmmption - Confiem as needed -
1 Sanlta", Sewee Maohole eve", 400 FT (maxlm"ml, 4 ft dla for less than 271n dla pipes, 5ft when othecw;se req"'red
Plpe- D"ctlle Iron, posh on joints
2 Storm Sewer Manhole evecy 400 FT (maxlm"m), 4 ft dla for less than 271n dla pipes, 5ft when othecw;se req"'red
Pipe- RCP Class III
3 Channal dewaterin 4-5 set"ps for doration of 4-6 mòoths each
- GW appears to be within 2-3 ft of excavation base, eeq"lring some contin"o", dewataring
Ass"me coffer dam on downstream end
-- Amma staged building from downsteeam to "pstream which will allow gra,'y dralnaga to
cofferdam
Ass"me (4"???) pomp to control dcy weather flow. Additional pomp wo"1d be requleeO after wet
weather e,ents (11 month)
Ass"me major storm sewers on east side of project can be maintained tor malority of construction
4 Stoem Sewer P"m Ino window -~--
After damo Install 24" HDPE cacrier pipe across channel and b"1k head low flow and "pstream sida.
Ove~ow goes Into channell colvert excavation d"ring malor events and Is p"mped O"t on
------ downsteeam and ---------
Minimal p"mpmg req",eed -- -..----
5 Traffic Control Lane Clo,"ee (Structore crossing) 100 droms, 6 barricade, 6 signs
Road Clo,"ee, 6 banicada, 6 signs
Per LIncoln Ceeek exampla - x% of total construction cost. sho"1d be less as we can re",e existing
a Erosion Control Bee pipe and have oor s'e dcy for all but h"ge events
Perhaps best on Back"p Calcs - calc"late CY and then e,"er ass"me a void % of say 30% with
un' wt of rock of 165Ib/ft3, or a m"'tlpller from LIncoln Creek of 1.3 or 1.4 CV to TON Note that
7 RI rap Gradall Ind"des o"tlet to 16th Street and extra at bridges and culverts discharging to channel
Revised width to 30 ft --
a Erosion Fabric Ass"me top 1/3 channel area Is Medl"m
Ass"me bottom 2/3 channel area and bottom Is Coco,"t Colr or othar
Assume O"t of bank (b"ffer area) Is seedad and m,,'ched
g Tempora", Shaeting -. Aveea e eelalned halght 0112 ft or 12SF/ LF
10 Struct"ral Backfill CY" 2 Ton/CY -~
11 Concrete Channel Bottom a Inches thick
12 Backfill CY" HonlCY
13 Sidewalks 5 Inch thick
14 To soil Side slopes- g Inch thick
T"" Grass Area- 6 Inches
Flood Channel Bottom-12 Inches
15 Sod Used In placed of seed for terrace areas
16 Contingency Ind"des construction continency, mlscellaneo", "nknowns -~
16A Enalneerinql Const Manomnt I~:~;r~: ~:~7;~;:r~tl~~al engmeenng and sorvey, geotech, constroctlon obseevation, rallraod, and
17 FIlter Fabric- Heav D"t Placed onder length of rlprap on channel bottom, pi", 10ft. --
la Seedln Use val"es from Erosion Fabric calculations
Amme O"t of bank areas to be t,," grass
Ass"me In channel areas to be native relrietVpe seeding.
Ind"des roadways as weil as alleys, sidewalks (77?) and parking areas, can be changed latar"
19 Pavement Removal necessacy
Typically ",ed for Pavement Removal aeeas and properties porchased, Will most likely havalower
20 Clear & Grob on' cost doe to little presence of trees and shrobs
21 Recreational Path Ass"me that path Is 10ft wide along length of entire opper reach
Topsoil excavation as,"mes that Low Flow Channel Is constrocted 4 ft above ass"mes base of
22 Exca,atlon channel so side slope distance reO"ced by 12 ft (3H,WI
Total Excavation qoantlty does not Incl"de Low Flow channal which wo,,1d red"ce total excavation.
23 Low Flow Channel Treatment Ass"me Low Flow Channel Is lined ",th q"aecy stones along the length ofthe open channel
24
25 Wateemaln Plpe- D"ctlle Iron, Class 5a (aI,,)
FIre Hydeants- M., spacing BOO (Residentiall
Mlnlm"mdepth5,5ft
26 B"ried Electrical Ass"meO to be located ""der each c",b line slated for eemoval
27 Enclosed Pipe Excavation Ass"methat footinas are 6'x3', to'x3', 6'x3' and bottom slab has thickness of 16"
2B
29
A
C..IE"'m...-E,d,.."(~11-04I-A""mp"",
e.g. ""
C' ofD,b, ,e
Bee Bran'" '"' nmonl ,"Iemabve,
0 n Channel
Item SI,e U"'I U""Co,t Q"nU Item Co", Note
Ac ,I. "'on
RosidenU.1
Pro e ,i."on
Strod"e Demolition EACH $100,000.00 67.0 $ 6,700.000
R",ocaticn
CommerolaU Ind"tri.1
Pro e A "",tion
Strod"e Demolition EACH $150,000.00 12,0 $ 1 ,BOO,OOO
Relocation
E...m.nts
Ea,emeotA ".iUon NO
SF
Utlll"os
Fiber 0 tic Communication LF $4.00 3650.0 $14,600.00
W"e""ain,
Diameler in"'e. 6 LF $45.00 1350,0
8 LF $45.00 150.0
10 LF $50.00 200.0
12 LF $55.00 250.0
20 LF $125.00 200.0
Sanila Sewe' LF
Diameler in"'e, 8 LF $45.00 1100,0
12 LF $55.00 200.0
30 LF $125.00 200.0
'" LF $150.00 950,0
42 LF $175.00 1100.0
Sanila Saw", Ma"hole 4ft NO $2,700.00 111
5ft NO $2,700.00 9
Slo"" Sewe,
Diameler i"che, 15 LF 500.0 $30,000,00
18 LF $0.00
24 LF 16.0 $1,600.00
30 LF 72.0 $9,360.00
36 LF $0,00
4B LF $0.00
54 LF 100.0 $40.500.00
60 LF $0.00
72 LF 8.0
84 LF 8.0 $3,960,00
~x3'HE LF 0,0 $0,00
Slo"" Sewe, Moohole, 4ft NO $0.00
5ft NO $0.00
Slo"" Sewe, Catch Ba,i" I'"'el, NO 12 $21 ,600.00 A.."me4 po, "'el .."..In, 3
Slo"" Sewer FES
15 NO $22,500.00 U,e 18'
24 NO $0,00
30 NO $3,400,00
54 NO $2,100.00
72 NO $2,500.00
84 NO $2,500.00
Ove"ead UtiIitie, LF $0.00
Na,"raIGa.
DJameler in"'e.) LF $0.00
LF $0.00
LF $0.00
LF $0.00
Electrie
BES S'eel U hti" LF $33,300.00
Mi" Comm,nicatlo" LF $0.00
Ge..ral
P"m '"
Channel dawalenn LS $80.000.00 4.0 $320,000,00 As,"me 4 canOecls
SIo",,'awe, LS $20,000,00 4.0 $80,000,00 Ass"me 4 ca"Oects
T,ame Contiol
Lana Clo,",e DAY $35,00 1200.0 $42,000.00 4 @300 Day. ea'"
Road CI"",e DAV $10.00 1200.0 $12,000.00 4 300 Day. ea'"
Ero,'o" Control LS $SO,OOO.OO 4.0 $200,000.00 Ass,me4 ""Oects
SUBTOTAL 9,932,333
A
c""",~.o".",(~"~,,m.eo..
"""",
Sy $5.00 14241.2 $71,205.94
Sy $4.00 374758 $149,903.22
Sy $3.00 1288.9 $3,888.67
SY $0.50 115050.7 $57,525.35
CY $10.00 217980.0 $2.179,800.00 "'"mea, 90% of total
CY $35.00 24220.0 $847,700.00 "'",me a, 10% of total
CY $1a.00 $0.00
SY $2.50 18111.1 $45.277.78
Cocon"t Colr SY $5.00 46279.8 $231.398.89
Mediuml U ht SY $2.50 97a2.9 $24,457.38
Hea RI ra TON $100.00 17115.0 $1.711,500.00
au Stone TON $135.00 5888.0 $792.150.00
T ,oil CV $20.00 18505.7 $370,114.54
Seedio $0.00
Chann.' SY $70,078.40
Overbaok, SY $5,791.87
Sod SV
R"",ab'" Pa~ .. halt SY $37.000.00
6,598800
C"'v.",
SY
SY
LF
SY
CY
a," CY
Cv
EA
LF
CY
CY
SY
cv
20 LF
28 LF
42 LF
CraooR",talw/"," on. w.ek 001 1M< $80.000.00
Cran. R",'al on. w... onl 1M< $50,000.00
8a""" Roodwa TON
Roodw
D. ~ of Conore" 10""'1 sv $35.00 3893.0
Cum an' G"tter LF $12.00 1930.0
Sidewalk' sv 1585.6
Raílin "Wall LF 1112.0
R"'lmool SY 10844.4
Rail Ra ler~a"l LF
To ..il cv
Saedlo SY
SUBTOTAL 5,028,715
Grand Subtotal $ 21,557,847
Construction Cantin enc 20% ,$ 4,311,569
En Ineerln I Canst Mn mU Admin! Pennitlin 15% 3,880,413
Grand Total $ 29,749,829,
A
""""~.D,."">,,...)~..Co."
P".""
Dubunue Bee Branch Cost Estimate
-~
Assumptions (may want 10 combine with Backup Calcs page) ~--~-~-~
I -- ~-_.. ~_~n -
Includa Coove"ion Rates, Depths of Excavation, etc. ~ -
ID No Coslltem Assumption - Confirm as needed ~_.~
,
1 Sanita~ Sewer Manhole every 400 FT (maximum), 4 ft dia for less than 27in dia pipes, 5ft when otherwise required
--- Pipe- Ductile Iron, push on joints
2 Storm Sewer Manhole every 400 FT (maximum), 4 ft dia for less than 27in dia pipes, 5ft when otherwise required
Pipe- RCP Class III
3 Channel dewateri¡¡;;- - 4-5 setups for duration of 4-6 months each
GW appea" to be within 2-3 ft of excavation base, requiring some continuous dewatering
Assume coffer dam on downstream end
Assume staged building from downstream to upstream which will allow gravity drainage to cofferdam
Assume (4"7??) pump to control dry weather flow. Additional pump would be required after wet weather
events (11 month) ~-
4 Storm Sewer Pumping ---- Assume major slorm sewe" on east side of project can be maintained for majority of construction window
, After demo install 24" HDPE carrier pipe across channel and bulk head low flow and upstream side.
~-~---_._-- - Overflow goes into channell culvert excavation during major eve~ts and is pumped oul on downstream end
Minimal pumping required
5 Traffic Control Lane Closure (Slructure crossing): 100 drums, 6 barricade, 6 signs
Road Closure: 6 barricade, 6 signs
Per Lincoln Creek example - x% of total construction cost - should be less as we can reuse existing Bee pipe
6 Erosion Control and have our site dry for all but huge events
Pert1aps best on Backup Cales - calculate CY and Ihen either assume a void % of say 30% wIth unit wi of
rock of 165 Ib1ft3, or a multiplier from Lincoln Creek of 1.3 or 1.4 CY to TON Note that includes outletto 161h
7 Ripran Grade II Street and extra al bridges and culverts discharging to channel n__- --
-- Revised wdith to 30 ft -~-
B EroSIon Fabriè---------~ Assume top 113 channel area is Medium
Assume bottom 213 channel area and bottom is Coconut Coir or other
Assume out of bank (buffer area) is seeded and mulched.
9 Te~or¡¡;;-'Sheeti~ Average retained height of 12 ft or 12SFI LF
10 Structural Backfill CY'2TonlCY
11 Concrete Channel Bottom B inches thick
12 Backfill CY' 2 Ton/CY
13 Sidewalks 5 inch thick --
14 Tonsoil Side slopes- 9 inch thick
Turf Grass Area- 6 inches ~-
Flood Channel Botlom- 12 inches
15 Sod Used in placed of seed for terraca areas --
16 Continnencv Includes construction contingency, miscellaneous unknowns
Engineerinnl Const Mannmnt Includas permitting, final engineering and su~ey, geotech, construction obse~ation, railroad, and contract
leA administration
17 Filter Fabhc- Hea;;;;-D¡¡¡;;- Placed under length of riprap on channel bottom, plus 10 ft.
18 Seedi¡¡;;- Use values from Erosion Fabric calculations
Assume out of bank areas to be turf grass.
Assume in channel areas 10 be native prairie type seeding.
19 Pavement Removal . Includes roadways as well as alleys, sidewalks (???) and parking areas, can be changed later if necessary
Typically used for Pavement Removal areas and properties purchased: Will most likely have lower unit cosl
20 Clear & Grub due to little presence of Irees and shrubs
21 Recreational Path Assume that palh is 10ft wide along length of entire upper reach
Topsoil excavation assumes that Low Flow Channel is constructed 4 ft above assumes base of channel so
22 Excavation side slope distance reduced by 12 ft (3H:1V)
Total Excavation quantity does nol include Low Flow channei which would reduce total excavation.
23 Low Flow Channel Treatment Assume Low Flow Channel is lined with quarry stones along the length of the open channel
24
25 Watermain ,Pipe- Ductile Iron, Class 58 (Bin)
,Fira Hydrants- Max spacing BOO (Residential)
Minimum depth 5.5 ft
26 Buried Electrical Assumed to be located under each curb line slated for removal
27 Existin Bee Branch Sewer No additional rehabilitation work required.
A
C"IEs'ma..s-O".nI13-1'-04I-A""mptie",
P"ole"
Oct 26 04 03:36p
Wa~ne Klostermann
563-582-4481
p.1
.' ,
\\'.\Y~I;; I\:I,()S'I'I<;I~l\I.\~~
I 2636Queen-
0.._-52001
. PI1one(563)554-1959
October26,2004
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Asa member of the BBCAC and an impacted business person, I feel that I, as well as the
rest of the BBCAC have been deceived, as it pertains to the Bee Branch.
This deception started with the response to the RFP that was sent to consulting firms
regarding the Bee Branch.
CDM had Conservation Design Form ( CDF) as a team member listed on there response. I
have to thinkr that the selection committee looked at all the firm listed as team members,
and made the selection based on the qualifications, assets, as well as past experience
doing projects of this scope. CDM must have beleived that CDF would bring something
extra to the table or they would not have included them on the team. COM's team was
selected as the consulting firm, for the Bee Branch.
In an e-mail from Mr. Patchett, CDF, stated' unfortunately we were informed by CDM ,
basically at the beginning of the process, that there would be no opportunity to consider
any type of innovative storm water resource management strategies of tile type we would
typically promote. They were not willing to even discuss options." It is unclear where that
direction came from, the CDM or the City.
The deception goes on. The "green" building issue was folWarded by a committee member
during one of the winter meetings. Mr. Lue, CDM, showed some photos of rain barrels, and
pervious pavement and stated that they would not a viable option and moved back to the
discussion of the ditch. It was suggested that the " green" options be included as a part of
the final recommendation to the council. The committee did not cast a vote on the " green
options" and possible solutions at that meeting.
I feel the price tag for the closed pipe option is over estimated and the ditch is under
estimated. I had made mention In one of the winter meetings that I had conversation with a
highly required engineer in Dubuque, and he had stated that poured in place pipe, a box
culvert is less expensive than precast Mr. Luer stated that was his opinion not theirs, no
Oct 26 04 03:37p
~a~ne Klostermann
563-582-4481
p.2
discussion or cost comparison was made.
In reviewing cost estimates provided by CDM via WHKS, I did not see any related cost for
bridges, at key intersections, although I have been told their estimated at 1M per bridge. I
recall seeing a photo of the FengierSt. Bridge, as an example, and if memory selVes
correct the Fengler St bridge was well over 1M.
The open ditch has nothing listed for side slope stabilizationr treesr or other amenities that
would create a pal1l.like setting, in fact turf is listed as a line item with no cost listed. I feel
their is a lot of work , for the council to do, before any informed decision can be made on
either the open ditch or closed pipe option.
In a letterto Pam Jochum and me, Mr. Van Miligean enclosed a copy of a communication
from COM to Matthew Tucker of CDM. This communication was dated March 24, 2004. As
you are aware that was much latter in the process, a result of a request from CDM to CDF to
provide assistance in the form of graphic illustrations of the CDM proposed plan. In that
same e mail as noted previously, Mr. Patchett explains the decision not to provide the
requested assistances. . At that point, having had no opportunity to be involved in the
planning and design process, and after reviewing what was being proposed we really didn't
want your name being associated with the project. It was a pretty disappointing situation
all the way around, because we believe that there could be a broad range of altematives
available that would effectively reduce runoff and flooding, improve water quality, reduce
neighborhood disruptions, and possibly cost the community less money"
There are currenUy 7 projects, of the 11 that has been identified in the Drainage Master
Plan, and my understanding funded, that are either 1-3 years behind schedule and one of
projects, the study for the dredging of the 16th St. basin, the RFP's have not even been
sent out yet .That was scheduled for spring 2003.
It is my understanding thata erosion and sediment ordinance along with a grading
ordinance will come before the council by the end of the year. I would ask that you pass
the ordinance, put the projects that are behind schedule back on schedule. and have Mr.
Patchett present to the council, in a work session format, their ideas of the alternatives
available that would solve the flooding issue, improve water quality, and prevent the total
nuking of a century old neighborhood.
I would ask that the council pass the incite suggestions that were listed in the letter dated
August 30, 2004.
I would ask that the council, act upon the recommendations of the ESAC that were
presented to you in February and passed off to staff, 10 months latter no action has been
taken.
Oct 26 04 03:37p
~a~ne Klostermann
563-582-4481
I would ask that the council post pone any decisions on the ditch project until the steps
outline above have been fully implemented.
I don't know who deceived whom, but I have to believe it was not the City Manager or City
staff, of whom I have nothing but the highest respect for.
M~~
Wayne Klostermann
p.3
City Manager's Office
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
(563) 589-4110 phone
(563) 589-4149 fax
ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org
THE CITY OF (:..--......,
PÜWQ1JE
~ck~
October 28, 2004
Mr. Wayne Klostermann
2636 Queen Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear Wayne:
I am pleased that you continue to present your thoughts, concerns, and questions
pertaining to the flooding problems that persist within the Bee Branch watershed. Thank
you for your vote of confidence for City staff. We have equal respect for your opinion on
this important neighborhood issue.
You are correct that Conservative Design Forum (CDF) was considered as a part of the
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) and WHKS & Co. project team. And as I stated in my
September 30th, 2004 correspondence, City staff shares your disappointment that CDF
did not contribute more to the study. I also stated that it was my understanding that the
split was a mutual decision. It appears that Mr. Patchett of CDF responded to my
statements in an e-mail dated October 7 to Pam Jochum. At my request, Mr. Lau of
CDM presented more information about the relationship between CDM and CDF and
the circumstances that lead up to the split. I have attached both documents for your
review.
On March 17, 2003 the City Council approved the Request for Proposals for the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration Project Alignment Study. The study was to include the
following:
1) Establish the optimum alignment for the proposed open waterway along its
approximately 4,500-foot length (from 16th Street detention basin to 24th and
Elm Streets) based on existing environmental, utility, social, and economic
constraints;
2) Provide a preliminary design to a level that it establishes:
a. What the waterway will look like at different locations along its entire
length;
Service
People
Integrity
R"pon,ibility
Innov"ion
T"mwork
Mr. Wayne Klostermann
October 28, 2004
Page 2
b. How the waterway will function before, during, and after rainstorms of
different magnitudes; and
3) Work with impacted residents in the form of a citizen's advisory committee to
ensure that the recommended alignment location and waterway design are
based on input from the neighborhoods impacted by the proposed open
waterway.
It is apparent from both Mr. Lau's and Mr. Patchett's responses that Mr, Patchett did not
understand the scope of the contract with the City, and when asked to provide his
services within that scope, chose not to participate.
But, you raise a very important point that I would like to clarify, the value that City staff
attributed to CDF as a member of the recommended project team. As outlined in the
request for proposals and endorsed by the City Council, one of the objectives of the
study was to establish what the creek would look like and how it would function, As a
registered Landscape Architect, Mr. Patchett has extensive experience with the
development of resource-based design strategies. City staff felt that inherent in Mr.
Patchett's past work is the philosophy that stormwater is a resource - not a nuisance; a
philosophy that the Bee Branch Creek would be a resource to the community. His input
would have been valuable within the scope of the contract.
I understand that a planning level cost estimate was prepared for the combination
closed conduit/open waterway alternative. I do not have the benefit of knowing the
engineer you have had discussions with. I do know that a Professional Engineer
licensed in the State of Iowa prepared the estimates used in the City's process.
The cost estimate for the open waterway totaling $31,763,672 includes: property
acquisitions, utility relocations, creek construction, street construction, bridges,
landscaping, and amenities. Specifically, there is $1,058,000 in the project estimate for
landscaping and amenities. The final payment for the Fengler Street Bridge to the
construction contractor was approximately $1.1 million in 2002. This bridge passes over
a railroad track and would be more expensive than the bridges described in the
stormwater report. Inflation has brought these costs closer together.
Regarding your belief that some of the projects are behind schedule, I do know that the
Carter Road Detention Basin has been completed and the W. 32nd Street remains on
the timetable established with the Fiscal Year 2004 budget, including construction
during Fiscal Year 2006. The only other Bee Branch watershed project is the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration project. It too is in-line with the timetable established with the
Fiscal Year 2004 budget. The most prudent approach to the 16th Street Basin dredging
study is to include it as part of this project, and that process has begun.
Related to your question about the February 2004 consideration of the ESAC
recommendations, the City Council has in fact already endorsed the idea of an
Mr. Wayne Klostermann
October 28, 2004
Page 3
ordinance promoting the use of the stormwater Best Management Practices
recommended by the Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission and of which
you speak as part of Dubuque's NPDES stormwater permit. A recommendation on this
permit is on the November 1, 2004 City Council Agenda.
Erosion control and implementing the other components of Dubuque's NPDES permit
will be a challenge this coming year. I hope that you remain involved and continue to
serve the community by helping the Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission
and City staff through the process.
Again, thank you for your concerns and interest.
Sincerely,
f1fèlu
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
MCVM:dm
Enc.
'Oct 26 04 03:36p
Wa~ne Klostermann
563-582-44Bl
c¿
p.l
/3-//í;
ø-G
\Y.\Y:-';E I\:I,()S'I'EI~l\I_\:-';:-';
0
I 2636_-
I -'_62001
I Phone (563) 554-1959
Q
:;;:; -:
=, ,
=
~
"JJ
-
""
c'
'n
')
.il
,-
-'.
October 26, 2004
'.~
-_C'
>~
ì:¡)
:=OJ
:'1
-'
w
Dear Mayor and City Council,
As a member of the BBCAC and an impacted business person, I feel that I, as well as the
rest of the BBCAC have been deceived, as it pertains to the Bee Branch.
, "
This deception started with the response to the RFP that was sent to consulting firms
regarding the Bee Branch.
COM had Conservation Design Form ( CDF) as a team member listed on there response. I
have to think, that the selection committee looked at all the firm listed as team members,
and made the selection based on the qualifICations, assets, as well as past experience
doing projects of this scope. CDM must have beleived that CÐF would bring something
extra to the table or they would not have included them on the team. COM's team was
selected as the consulting finn, for the Bee Branch.
In an e-mail from Mr. Patchett, CDF, stated . unfortunately we were informed by COM ,
basicaUy at the beginning of the process, that there would be no opportunity to consider
any type of innovative storm water resourœ management strategies of the type we would
typically promote. They were not willing to even discuss options." It is unclear where that
direction came from, the COM or the City.
The deception goes on. The "green" building issue was forwarded by a committee member
during one of the winter meetings. Mr.lue, COM, showed some photos of rain barrels, and
pervious pavement and stated that they would not a ~able option and moved back to the
discussion of the ditch. It was suggested that the , green' options be included as a partof
the final recommendation to the council. The committee did not cast a vote on the' green
options" and possible solutions at that meeting.
I feel the price tag for the dosed pipe option is over estimated and the ditch is under
estimated. I had made mention in one of the winter meetings that I had conve<sation with a
highly required engineer in Dubuque, and he had stated that poured in place pipe, a box
culvert is less expensive than precast. Mr. Lue, stated that was his opinion not theirs, no
UC~ Cb U~ U~:~~p
Wa~ne Klostermann
563 582-4481
discussion or cost comparison was made.
In reviewing cost estimates provided by CDM via WHKS , I did not see any related cost for
bridges, at key intersections, although I have been told their estimated at 1M per bridge. I
recall seeing a photo of the FenglerSl Bridge, as an example, and if memoryseM!S
cotreCt the Fengler St bridge was well over 1M.
The open ditch has nothing listed for side slope stabilization, trees, or other amenities that
would create a park like setting, in fact turf is listed as a line item with no cost listed. I feel
their is a lot of work , for the council to do, before any informed decision can be made on
either the open ditch or closed pipe option.
In a letter to Pam Jochum and me, Mr. Van Miligean enclosed a copy of a communication
from COM to Matthew Tucker of COM. This communication was dated March 24, 2004. As
you are aware that was much latter in the procêss, a result of a request from COM to COF to
provide assistance in the fonn of graphic illustrations of the CDM proposed plan. In that
same e mail as noted previously, Mr. Patchett explains the decision not to provide the
requested assistances. . AI. that point, having had no opportunity to be involved in the
planning and design process, and after reviewing what was being proposed we really didn't
want your name being associated with the project. It was a prell}' disappointingsituation
all the way around, because we believe that there could be a broad range of alternatives
available that would effectively reduce runoff and flooding, improve water quality, reduce
neighborhood disruptions, and possibly cost the community less money'"
There are currently 7 projects, of the 11 that has been identified in the Drainage Master
Plan, and my undeJStanding funded, that are either 1- 3 years behind schedule and one of
projects, the study for the dredging of the 16th Sl basin, the RFP's have not even been
sent out yet .That was scheduled for spring 2003.
It is my undeJStanding that a erosion and sediment ordinance along with a grading
ordinance will come before the council by the end of the year. I would ask that you pass
the onlinance, put the projects that are behind schedule back on schedule, and have Mr.
Patchett present to the councilr in a work session fonnat, their ideas of the alternatives
available that would solve the flooding issue, improve water quality, and prevent the total
nuking of a century old neighborhood.
I would ask that the council pass the incite suggestions that were listed in the Jetter dated
August 30, 2004.
I would ask that the council, act upon the recommendations of the ESAC that were
presented to you in February and passed off to staff, 10 months latter no action has been
taken.
p.2
. Oct 26 04 03:37p
~a~ne Klostermann
563-582-4481
I would ask that the council post pone any decisions on the ditch project until the steps
outline above have been fully implemented.
I don't know who deceived whom, but I have to believe ¡twas not the City Manager or City
staff, of whom I have nothing but the highest respect for.
Sincerelyr
~~~
Wayne Klostermann
'"
p.3
CONI
330 East KilboumA,enue. Suite 1219
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
tel 41429'.5100
ta" 414291-2765
October 27, 2004
Mr. Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
City Hall
50 West 13'" Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4864
",
RE:
Conservation Design Forum Project Participation
Consideration of "Green" Solutions for the Bee Branch Flooding Problems
Bee Branch Restoration Project
CDM Project 20959-39471
Dear Mr. Van Milligen:
Over the past couple months, we have become aware of some correspondence and discussion
regarding the participation of our original Bee Branch team member, Conservation Design
Forum and the appropriateness of certain" green" solutions to the Bee Branch flooding
problem. 11ús letter offers our response to the concerns and issues that have been raised
regarding the role of Conservation Design Forum in the Bee Branch project and the value of
"green" solutions such as Stormwater Reduction Practices as a potential solution to the Bee
Branch flooding problems.
Conservation Design Forum Role
In our preliminary discussions with Conservation Design Forum regarding the approach and
work plan for the Bee Branch project, Conservation Design Forum suggested that we invest
the time to consider a "green" master plan for the entire Bee Branch watershed that would
include the runoff reduction BMPs such as raingardens and porous pavement Conservation
Design Forum felt that a "green" master plan would be a viable solution for the Bee Branch
flooding and that they could assist us in its preparation.
We advised Conservation Design Forum that we did not believe we should pursue a "green"
master plan for several reasons. First, it was not in our scope and not within the direction
from the Co\lllcil; second, a master plan had already been prepared for the Bee Branch
watershed; and third, our experience demonstrated that such a solution had merit as a
component of an overall solution, but would not come close to solving the Bee Branch
flooding problem.
CDIVI
Mr. Michael C. Van Milligen
October 27, 2004
Page 2
Conservation Design Forum did not agree with our assessment and felt that we should
present this master plan concept to the Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee (BBCAC).
We advised them that as the lead consultant, it was our responsibility to determine the project
approach within our contract scope and we would not be doing their suggested green master
plan. However, we agreed that the runoff reduction practices had merit and that we would
present them as components of a comprehensive solution.
Later in the project, as a part of developing the details of potential alternatives, we requested
Conservation Design Forum assist us in developi,;g the details of what an open channel
solution would look like in terms of its treatment and appearance and asked them to prepare
a graphic showing the open channel concept They chose not to participate in this task.
Consideration of Stormwater Reduction Practices/Green BMPs
Green BMF options were presented to and evaluated by the BBCAC and were discussed with
the Committee in detail in at least one meeting. In that meeting, CDM presented several
potential solutions comprised of several green BMFs. Based on these potential solutions, the
BBCAC concluded that Stormwater Reduction Practices were not practical or functional as an
overall solution to the flooding on the Bee Branch. However, the Committee felt that these
kinds of BMFs should be a component of an overall solution to the problem.
We have heard claims that" green" solutions can more effectively reduce flooding on the Bee
Branch and that they can achieve this with far less disruption to the existing neighborhood.
In our opinion, this is an overstatement of the benefits that can be achieved from this kind of
solution and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the true magnitude of the flooding
problem in the Bee Branch area.
Differing ApproaclýPhilosophies
CDM and Conservation Design Forum differ in what we believe to be the most cost effective
and practical way to solve the Bee Branch flooding problem. Conservation Design Forum
disagreed with the scope of the project and with our approach and chose not to participate in
the project. We would characterize this difference of opinion as two consulting firms with
different philosophies and project visions that decided to go in separate directions.
CDM is not opposed to the types of green solutions that have been proposed. In fact, we
recently completed a study of the benefits of these kinds of BMPs for the entire Milwaukee
Metropolitan area. However, we are confident that they were not the answer to the flooding
problems on the Bee Branch.
We trust that this provides you with some of the facts associated with how we conducted the
Bee Branch project relative to Conservation Design Forum's lack of involvement and
5,\20959\Bee ß,anch\October T7 CDF tt'"jel.doc
CDIVI
Mr. Michael C. Van Milligen
October 27, 2004
Page 3
consideration of "green" solutions. We have endeavored to provide the City with objective
and professional services consistent with the scope of our contract and with the goal of
developing a cost effective and practical solution to the Bee Branch flooding problem. If you
need any additional information, please feel free to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
~
, "
Daniel H, Lau, P.E., DEE
Project Manager
cc:
Tony Zelinskas
S,\209S9\ Bee Branch \ Octo,"", Zl CDF Itt-jel.doc
Page I of3
Lynn Schlueter
From: Kevin Firnstahl [kfirnsla@cilyofdubuque.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 20048:35 AM
To: Ischluel@cityofdubuque.org
Subject: FW: Dubuque
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Nicholson [mailto:dnicholson@cityofdubuque,Drg]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 3:21 PM
To: Kevin Fimstahl
Subject: PW: Dubuque
Kevin,
Please pass this on to Mike,
"
Dan Nicholson
danieJenicholson@mchsi.com
Council Member at-Large
dni chols on@ci!yofdubuque.org
Ltt¡>:/;www.gtvofdubuQue.org!
httD://v."",'W.americaSIiver.com/
http:/;www.grandexcursion.com/
htlp:/ ;w\\'W.dubuque365.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Pam Jochum [mailto:pamjochum@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, 07 October, 2004 3:04 PM
To: Dan Nicholson; Roy Buo!; JDhn Markham; Terry Duggan
Subject: Fw: Dubuque
Please paragraph 2. It does not jive with the information sent to me from the City Manager's office
regarding CDM and CDF.
Pam
-- Original Message --
From: Patchell, Jim
Sent: Thursday, Oclober 07, 2004 12:37 PM
To: Pam Jochum; Cooper, Andrea; Tucker, Mall
Subject: RE: Dubuque
Pam:
It's great to hear from you. We would be very interested in working with the community, the
school district, and the design team to assist in the design and implementation of a "green"
elementary school. I will follow up accordingly with Superintendent Burgart, and copy you on the
correspondence. The school district may also wish to contact the Kresge Foundation and apply
for a "green design" grant. This relatively new program can provide funds for non-profit groups,
such as schools, in the range of SO - 100 thousand dollars, strictly for design fees to promote
integrated green building and site development initiatives. The Foundation is very interesting in
10/28/2004
Page 2 oD
promoting education, so I would think that the project would be viewed very favorably. They also
have a "Bricks and Mortar" grant which can provide funding assistance towards the construction
of the project. For your information, we have been part of the project team that has designed
the Foundation's new HQ's complex in Troy, MI. They are hoping to qualify for LEED Platinum
rating. You can learn more about their programs at www.kresge.org. We would be pleased to
assist you in the matter.
With respect to the Bee Branch project, we were originally invited to be part of the team, but
unfortunately were informed by CDM, basically at the beginning of the process, that there wouid
be no opportunity to consider any of the types of innovative water resource management
strategies of the type that we would typically promote. They were not willing to even discuss
options, Honestly, I don't mean to suggest that CDM wouldn't consider options, That direction
may have come from the City. We don't really know. Following that initial discussion, we had
virtually no communication from them. Frankly, we didn't even know whether the project was
moving forward, or any details concerning its progress. Much later in the process, however, we
received a phone call from CDM's project managerr requesting that we provide assistance in the
form of preparing graphic illustrations of their proposed plans. At that point, having had no
oppDrtunity to be invDlved in the planning and design process, and after reviewing what was
being proposed, we really didn't want our name associated with the project. It was a pretty
disappointing situation all the way around becaus"e we believe that there could be a broad range
of alternatives available that would effectively reduce runoff and flooding, improve water quality,
reduce neighborhood disruptions, and possibly CDSt the cDmmunity less mDney. It would,
however, require taking a more holistic look at the watershed and the consideration of alternative
site development and water resource management strategies.
I hope that this adequately answers your question. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be
of further assistance in the matter.
I will formulate a letter of introduction to Superintendent Burgart, and get back in touch soon.
Thanks, Jim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pam Jochum [mailto:pamjochum@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07r 2004 10:58 AM
To: Patchett, Jim
Subject: Dubuque
Dear Jim:
Your presentation in Dubuque last month was excellent. Since that time, several people in
attendance have contacted the Dubuque Community School District about contacting your
firm and bulilding a "green" elementary school in Downtown Dubuque. Superintendent
John Burgart and the architect for the new school are very interested in pursuing green
solutions. In addition, several school board members have been in contact with some of us
regarding this as well.
Superintendent Burgart can be reached at ilillC9.ill~dubuque.k12, ia.us
We are searching for government funding sources for "green" buildings.
On another issue--stormwater.
There is confusion about your firms role in the stormwater projects in Dubuque, On one
hand the Bee Branch Community Advisory Committee (BBCAC) has been told that CDM, the
consulting engineers hired by the Dubuque City Council, had originally included your firm as
a partner in the RFP. After being awarded the contract, CDM advised your firm that its
services were not needed because it was strictly an engineering project, On the other
hand, we are told that your firm voluntarily withdrew from the project--it was mutually
agreed upon. Two different versions. Would you please cast some light on this dilemma.
10/28/2004
Page 3 of 3
The citizen advisDry board is still fighting for sustainable stormwater solutions, but the
committee is up against the bureaucracy of government that is fearful of doing anything
other than an open ditch through the middle of a century old neighborhold. The proposed
ditch will remove 70 homes and 13 businesses. It will require building 3 bridges to connect
main thoroughways with the affected neighborhoods; reconstructing streets around
Audubon Elementary School and a host of other issues that have not been included in their
cost estimates.
Please clarify your firms role with CDM and why your firm was involved in this project.
Thanks,
Pam Jochum
"
10/28/2004
THE CITY OF
City Managel" 5 Office
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
(563) 589-4110 phone
(563) 589-4149 fax
ctymgr@Ótyofdubuque,olg
-"",-- '
[)r) b \2U E
~ck~
October 28, 2004
The Honorable Pam Jochum
Iowa State Representative
2368 Jackson
Dubuque, IA
Dear Representative Jochum:
Thank you for your October 7,2004 e-mail. I agree that there appears to be a
discrepancy about the circumstances that lead to the break up of the CDM/CDF team
as reflected in the March 24th, 2004 letter from Daniel Lau of Camp Dresser & McKee
(CDM) and the e-mail dated October 7, 2004 from Jim Patchett of Conservative Design
Forum (CD F) ,
At my request, Mr. Lau has presented more information about the relationship between
COM and CDF in a letter dated October 27,2004 (see attachment).
On March 17, 2003 the City Council approved the Request for Proposals for the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration Project Alignment Study. The study was to include the
following:
1) Establish the optimum alignment for the proposed open waterway along its
approximately 4,500-foot length (from 16th Street detention basin to 24th and
Elm Streets) based on existing environmental, utility, social, and economic
constraints;
2) Provide a preliminary design to a level that it establishes:
a. What the waterway will look like at different locations along its entire
length;
b. How the waterway will function before, during, and after rainstorms of
different magnitudes; and
3) Work with impacted residents in the form of a citizen's advisory committee to
ensure that the recommended alignment location and waterway design are
based on input from the neighborhoods impacted by the proposed open
waterway,
,""ice
People
""eg,ity
R"pm"ib;¡i'y
IO'O'O',lio"
T,,",wook
The Honorable Pam Jochum
October 28, 2004
Page 2
It is apparent from both Mr. Lau's and Mr. Patchett's responses that Mr. Patchett did not
understand the scope of the contract with the City, and when asked to provide his
services within that scope, chose not to participate.
Thank you for your continued interest.
Sincerely,
jlli4
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
MCVM:jh
Enc.
THE OTY OF , -~"
~ ._~"~QfffjUE
City M,n'ge" Office
50 West 13th Slœel
Dubuque, low, 5l0014864
(563) 5894110 phone
(563) 5894149 fax
ctymgriY"lyofdubuque~org
~ck~
September 30, 2004
The Honorable Pam Jochum
Iowa State Representative
2368 Jackson
Dubuque, IA 52001
Mr. Wayne Klostermann
2636 Queen Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear Pam and Wayne,
... ,
I appreciate your concern regarding Bee Branch flooding problems, stormwater run-off,
and incorporating "green" solutions into new construction. The Bee Branch problem is
both complex and challenging. As always, pùblic input is invaluable as we move toward
a solution. City staff continues to work diligently with Camp Dresser & McKee (COM) to
summarize the results of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study, address
the issues cited in the August letter from BBCAC members, and formulate a
recommendation to the City Council for action.
It was unfortunate no one from the City could attend Jim Patchett's workshop. That
very evening, the City Council was meeting to discuss the City's goals and priorities for
the upcoming year. Once again, addressing Bee Branch watershed flooding was
identified by the Dubuque City Council as extremely irnportant. In fact, the "Bee Branch
Creek Restoration" emerged as one of only six top priorities. Through your efforts, the
City Council and City staff is familiar with Mr. Patchett's firm, Conservative Design
Forum (CDF), and the work being done at St. Ambrose University. A "green" building in
Dubuque is an intriguing idea and would certainly present educational opportunities,
however, your proposal on the new downtown school is an issue that you need to
present to the School Board, as it is their independent decision on the design.
Your letter expressed disappointment that Mr. Patchett has not assisted the City in
developing a solution for flooding problems. While a CDF representative accompanied
CDM during interviews for the Bee Branch study consultant, Mr. Patchett did not attend.
We understand that the break up of the team was a mutual decision between CDF and
CDM. Regardless of the circumstances, City staff shares your disappointment that Mr.
Patchett's firm did not contribute more to the study.
The study commissioned by the City has always been an engineering study. The City
Council authorized the hiring of COM to perform the following tasks:
5oNic<
P~pt.
Integrity
R~po~¡bility
t~~,tion
T.~wo.-k
The Honorable Pam Jochum
Mr. Wayne Klostermann
September 30, 2004
Page 2
3)
Establish the optimum alignment for the proposed open waterway along its
approximately 4,500-foot length based on existing environmental, utility, social,
and economic constraints;
Provide a preliminary design to a level that it establishes:
a. What the waterway will look like along its entire length and
b. How the waterway will function before, during, and after rainstorms of
different magnitudes; and
Work with impacted residents in the form of a citizens advisory committee to
ensure that the recommended alignment location and waterway design are based
on input from the neighborhoods impacted by the proposed open waterway.
1 )
2)
It is rny understanding that BBCAC members directed CDM to look at altematives other
than the open waterway solution, including "green" solutions. Additionally, it is my
understanding that the BBCAC concluded that"lgreen" solutions alone could not solve
the Bee Branch flooding problems. This was reported in the Bee Branch Alignment
Study Newsletter #3 (February 2004), "Rain gardens, rain barrels, cisterns, and porous
pavement were considered. But they are only suitable as a component of the final
recommendation."
Based on information from a variety of sources, City staff does believe that "green"
solutions can be utilized in Dubuque. As part of the National Pollution Discharge System
(NPDES) Phase II permit application, the City Council endorsed the creation of an
ordinance that promotes some of the best management practices (BMPs) that Mr.
Patchett's firm advocates. We expect the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to
issue the City an NPDES permit in November. The next step will be to seek citizen and
developer input to help create the ordinance. BBCAC members will certainly be notified
of the times and dates of upcoming City Council discussions. I hope you stay involved
throughout the process.
It is my intent to respect the results of the City Council's work session with the BBCAC
and the conclusions of the City Council's goal setting session and bring forward an
implementation plan at the October 18 City Council meeting for construction of the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration Project. Any requests you have of the City Council as far as
meetings or discussions should be made directly to them.
Thank you again for your letter.
Sincerely,
¡fYLM
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
MCVM:dm
The Honorable Pam Jochum
Mr. Wayne Klostermann
Septernber 30, 2004
Page 3
cc:
Mayor Terry Duggan
Dubuque City Council
Dr. Charlie Winterwood, BBCAC Chairperson
BBCAC members
Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counce!
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Gus Psihoyos, Acting Public Works Director
Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer II
CDI\t1
330"""lboo,,'.,o"',S,,I<o1219
Mllw,ok". WI,,"",ln 53202
,,' '" 29H100
", '" 291.2765
March 24, 2004
Conservation Design Forum
Attn: Matthew J. Tucker
375 W. First Street
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Subject:
Bee Branch Creek Restoration p~~i~~ct
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Based on your recent conversations with Mike Oleson in our office, it is my understanding
that Conservation Design Forum (CDF) has chosen to not assist Camp Dresser McKee (CDM)
at this time on the Bee Branch Creek Restoration project.
As discussed with Mike, the project has concentrated on the concerns of the Bee Branch
Citizen Advisory Comnùttee (BBCAC) in selecting a preferred alignment and has taken a
slightly different direction than originally envisioned in the proposal process. Although CDM
looked forward to your participation in the development of the channel treatment details, we
understand your deàsion to not be involved at this point in the project. However, we will
continue to keep you in mind as the project moves forward and as other oppqrtunities present
themselves.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact myself at your conveTÙence.
v~
Daniel H. Lau, P.E.
Vice President
Camp Dresser & McKee mc,
S\2O959\B~ """"""","",CDf ,. ~"."'"
co",ohlog. "'gin"';"g . oo""""';on. op,,";on;
January 27,2004
Honorable Mayor Terry M. Duggan and
City Council Members
City Hall
50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque IA 52001
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members:
"',
Over the past several months, the Environmental Stewardship AdYisory Commission
has been studying Low Impact Development as it relates to stormwater management.
The Commission was part of the City's NPDES permit process last year in an oversight
capacity and also by participating in various subcommittees. The Environmental
Stewardship Advisory Commission recommends that Best Management Practices be
implernented for new construction sites and construction renovations in order to: 1)
irnprove water quality and, 2) confine stormwater runoff to the site on which it falls until
peak flow has passed.
The benefIts of reduced stormwater runoff and improved water quality will improve
Dubuque's economy and its citizens' health by:
. Reducing physical damage from floods
. Reducing costs of infrastructure for water treatment
. Decreasing waterborne disease and costs related to its prevention and
treatment.
Attached are design criteria for new construction sites, which may be considered. The
ESAC would recommend including these recommendations in yarious City ordinances
that are already in place. For instance, driveway curb cuts, street construction, and
sidewalk construction already require permits from various City departments. These,
along with other construction that influences stormwater runoff, such as construction or
replacement of patios and driveways, retaining walls, or various types of landscaping
could also require a permit to insure that Best Management Practices are included.
The ESAC would recommend that City Council direct staff to consider the attached
design criteria for new construction sites and Best Management Practices in modifying
existing ordinances. This would not only improve the stormwater runoff quality and
reduce its amount, but also aid in the City's NPDES compliance requirements.
If you have any questions, Commission members would be happy to address them.
Sincerely,
Michael Buelow, Chair
Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission
MB/cj
cc: Environmental Stewardship Advisory Comrnission members
Mary Rose Corrigan, RN, Public Health Specialist
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Gus Psihoyos, Assistant City Engineer
'-
Desiqn criteria for new construction sites
To meet the purposes above, we recommend that the following be required on all new
construction sites.
1. Identification, delineation, and mitigation of all potential wetlands on a site.
2. Grading plans to conform to proposed and approved grading plans. Site to
have topographic survey completed prior to vegetation of the site to
confirm conformance to grading plan.
3. Use of Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) with a soil loss not
to exceed 3 tons per acre.
4. Vegetation of the site within 30 days of excavation, with cover within 30
days of vegetation. New sites (subdivisions and sites over one acre) would
be allowed to use a temporary cover crop. New home sites would be
required to install turf. They would be allowed to keep a 15-ft. buffer from
the foundation to allow construction activities to take place, providing
erosion control methods (silt fEill1cing or sediment logs) were installed to
prevent soil from migration into turf areas. In the event vegetation could
not be accomplished (e.g., winter months), erosion control mat or hydro
mulch could be applied to the site to prevent erosion
5. Use of bioretention in parking lots
6. Tree inventory of site to protect existing trees, if they have value, as either
a landscape tree, lumber tree, or because of age and stature.
7. Planting of trees with a calper (diameter 6" above ground) of not less than
2", or trees that will reach 2" calper within the first year of planting.
Design criteria shall be to retain on the site 6.36" of rain in a 24-hour time span (100
year storm event). The contractor, or developer, may use any, or a combination of,
BMPs to meet the design criteria.
The following BMPs may be used to meet the above design criteria:
1. Low impact design
2. Permeable pavement
3. Rain Gardens
4. Use of some under ground vessel as storage for storm water run off.
(This water can be used as for irrigation, car-washing etc. or plumbed to the
home or business to be used in non-potable water applications.)
Other Considerations
1. In the event that the cost of implementing BMPs is greater than the cost
associated with normal development or construction cost, the stormwater
utility could be used to cover the overage.
2. Pervious pavement could replace detention ponds and costs associated with
their construction, maintenance, and loss of income from the lot(s) that they
occupy. The streets, driveways, patios, landscape planting beds and
underground vessels would become the detention area in the subdivision.
3. All the BMPs can be retrofitted in most sections of Dubuque.
4. Provides the City the opportunity to set the pace in Iowa for clean water and
stormwater management.
5. Pervious pavement has the, potential to reduce the cost associated with street
maintenance as well as snow and ice control.
'- -