Bee Branch Cr Proj Prel. Design
5~
~ck~
MEMORANDUM
December 9, 2004
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: December 13, 2004 City Council Work Session
Please find the attached agenda for the upcoming work session on the preliminary
design of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project. A copy of CDM's report was
distributed at the November 1, 2004 City Council meeting. However, if you need an
additional copy, please call Deron Muehring anytime this weekend and he will deliver a
copy. He can be reached at 599-3117. If for some reason you are unable to reach
Deron, please call Gus Psihoyos at 599-3989.
At the request of the City Council, Conservative Design Forum (CDF) has been invited
to attend the work session. Engineering has had multiple conversations with CDF, most
recently on Thursday, December 9. It is uncertain if a representative from CDF will
attend the meeting.
(f)uLJ C. UdA\ m~
Michael C. Van Milligen Ccr 14)
Attachments
cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Gus Psihoyos, Acting Public Works Director
Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer II
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
6:00 P.M., MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004
LIBRARY AUDITORIUM
TOPIC: DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN
OF THE BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
PROJECT
AGENDA:
1.
Presentation by Conservative Design Forum (CDF)
2.
Presentation by CDM
a. Review the Bee Branch Creek Restoration
Alignment Study Background and Objective
b. Preliminary Design Overview
i. Alignment
ii. Performance
iii. Appearance
c. Implementation Considerations
Engineering Division
City Hall
50 West 13th St,eet
Dubuque, fA 52001-4864
(563) 5894270 office
(563) 589-4205 fax
D~
~~~
November 9, 2004
Mr. James M. Patchett, President
Conservation Design Forum, Inc.
375 W. First Street
Elmhurst, IL 60126
RE:
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignmènt Study
Dear Mr. Patchett:
On Monday, December 13, 2004, the Dubuque City Council will hold a work session on
the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study from 6:00 o'clock p.m. to 8:00
o'clock p.m. at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library Auditorium, 360 11th Street, Dubuque,
Iowa. The meeting will focus on the results of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration
Alignment Study, a copy of which was sent to you last week.
Because Conservation Design Forum was on the original team that prepared the Study,
the City Council has indicated that they would like a representative of your firm, along
with CDM and WHKS & Co., to attend the meeting.
As we discussed in our phone conversation last week, the City will pay any expenses
you incur for your presentation at the December 13, 2004 City Council meeting. If you
have any questions and/or need additional information, please contact me at (563) 589-
4270.
Sincerely, Q
oj
-..../.Tj '~ - .~"'ð-V=-
Gus Psihoyos
Acting Public Works Director
cc:
Daniel H. Lau, P.E. - CDM
Tony Zelinskas, P.E. - WHKS & Co.
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer II
Se","e
People
lnte",ity
R..ponsibility
[nnDvotion
TeamWD,k
5~
~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 concems 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:
the optimum alignment for the proposed open waterway along its
4,500-foot length (from 16th Street detention basin to 24th and
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, COM, 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 COM, 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.
the project on a 10-year construction schedule (with 8 of the 10 years
for completion by 2013) the revised cost estimate, including a factor 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 compiicated 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 ORA 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 ORA 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 ORA 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.
util (£'V] At
Mic ael 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
~
~cÆ~
MEMORANDUM
October 25, 2004
FROM:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Gus Psihoyos, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer j)d ,Q
TO:
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
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 altemative 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
(COM) with WHKS and Conservative Design Forum (CD F) 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 COM 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 PTA 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 0
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, COM 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 concems.
A City Council work session was held on May 17th, 2004. BBCAC "preliminary"
recommendations were presented. They were:
#1
Recommendation passed by a 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 bv 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 COM resumed the study with the original objectives. As stated above,
they are:
3.
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.
b.
1.
2.
COM presented the findings of the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study to
City staff; a copy of the Report is attached.
Optimum AIiQnment
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 COM to determine the best alignment south of the railroad tracks,
specifically, east or west of the old packing plant.
COM 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
unfavorable.
Page 4 of 18
.:A/ign~preferred unanimously by BBCAC members presented 10 the City
iflthê letter from BBCAC Chairperson Charles Winlerwood.
N
A
-i';25O 0 250 500 750 1000 Feet
.. ~1iïiiíiiI~~--
Legend
rv
Bee B..nch Mainine
Exi..ng Building'
D
Detention Ba,in,
Channel Alignment
r"J Canterlne
N ErlgaofCon",uction/Buffe,Zone
0 CulvertConnaction
BBCAC Preferred
Alignment Corridor
CDM & WHKS
J..,. 24, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City 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, COM 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 COM 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 DesiQn
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
COM 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 COM's Representation of the Bee Branch C~e~k.
Functionalitv 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
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.
on 2004 dollars, COM's estimate for the restoration of the Bee Branch Creek is
,983,247. It includes: property acquisitions, utility relocations, creek construction,
et construction, bridges, landscaping, and amenities (see Appendix P of the Report).
Page 8 of 18
Table 1. Evolution of the cost estimate for the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Pro'ect.
Pro'ect Reason for Revision Revised Cost
Bee Branch Creek
Restoration from 16th
Street to 24th Street
As outlined In the financial scenario used by City staff to
establish the stormwater utility fee and required stormwater
funding. Scenario was based on an 8-year Bee Branch
project starting in FY06 and finishing in FY13. Estimated
ro'ect cost was increased based on antici ated 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.
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
investigation of material unit prices allows for a lower
contin enc .
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
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
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
rate. Estimate includes an additional $401,000 for an
increase in the level of amenities.
Page 9 of 18
$17,100,000
$18,029.000
$20,892,931
$29,800,000
$25,000,000
$26,983,247
$30,333,845
$31,763,672
Again, the cost of everything pictured in Figure 2 and attached Figure 5-2 is included in
COM's estimate for the open waterway.
Other Preliminary Oesiqn Considerations
Another major goal of the preliminary design is to identify and address as many
difficulties to avoid roadblocks as the project moves forward. COM'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
private 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 COM,
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 tomado 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 fumaces 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 10of18
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.
6)
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
it south to Garfield. Amenities included in the cost estimate such as lights,
benches, and plantings along the path could make the creek a meeting place
neighbors.
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 COM 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 altemative.
Proiect Reason for Revision Revised Cost
Bee Branch Creek
Restoration from 16"' Original planning level estimate produced by COM $42,000,000
Street to Garfield (March 2004\.
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 aliowed for a smaller continoencv.
Reconstruction from
Garfield to 24"' Street City staff estimate for the project if it is initiated in FY05 $49,263,745
and completed in FY2013. Estimate assumes a 3%
inflation 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
estimates for the 10-year funding plan presented in Table 1 for the open waterway
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 130f18
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 Projects. 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 COM.
I also recommend that the DBMP projects are funded and constructed in the original 10-
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 original 1 O-year period.
Page 15 of 18
Tab
Ie 3. Evolution of DBMP project costs with revised open waterwav estimate.
FY03 FY04 FY05
DBMP Project Estimate Estimate Estimate
1 O-vear Plan
Carter Detention $875,000 $875,000 $875,000
W. 32"0 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 d b h BBCAC
mmende )v t e
FY03 FY04 FY05
DBMP Project Estimate Estimate Estimate
1 O-vear 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
(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 ORA 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
laonds to pay for the DBMP and using ORA and Utility Fees to retire the debt.
Page 16 of 18
It should be noted that under the current funding plan, ORA 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
ImprovementslExtensions, Stream-bank Stabilization Assistance Program, Detention
Basin Maintenance, and Stormwater Ditch Maintenance & Remediation. The ORA
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 ORA 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
the Ooen Waterwav.
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
OriClinaD
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+
'Prooosed)
.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
oroiects if the closed conduit/ooen 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
FYO4-13 $1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.81
(Current)
FYO4-13 $1.29 1.89 2.10 2.74 3.44 4.10 4.49 5.39 6.03 5.88" 5.06+
(Prooosed)
.Utility was established in FY04
". tFl\ie..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
CDM/WHKS
Page 18 of 18
A-\'S"\
+ 5~. BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTOF<ATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
~~~ PREFERRED CHANNEL
CDM ALIGNMENT
500 a 500 Feet
, I FIGURE No 5-1
DATE: SEPT 2004
N
Sources Dubuque Area Geographrc Inlbnnaúon Systems (DAGIS) daled May 2000
>-
0
:0
f-
(I)
"'f-
Wz
Ww
f'j~
I",
'i:J
&~
"'0
lli~
"'0
f-
~
d§l
~}
---1
W
Zf-
ZCL
«W
IO
Oz
zO
wO
CL
0
N
J,
ò
Z
w
¡r
::>
'"
¡¡:
.,.
0
R
1-
0..
w
(I)
IlJ
g
~
""';¡ ii -, " ,
" / .,
j
,/ -"
~~g/ '1'
,ii' ,'>,<:: / ,!.
. 'It/¡':',
:I ,. 'i¡i~QéÔ' //
,'/'/>1:.§;;,
.:/, . ð ,~i\//'1iÍ¡.,
.. ".I/I,~ ,I
. ',>i .~Çj ,
.p~~Yfi§.~<
;I ..¿j'.
./ '¡
Ii ,'"
Elm Street (24th to 22nd)
Lincoln Ave
Garfield Ave
Pine Street
Maple Street (16th to 15th)
.. Cedar Street (16th to 15th)
~,
N
+
Sources: Dubuque Area Geographic Inlbrmalion Systems (DAGtS), dated May 2000
D~.
?Iw-¡ eoi<L. ~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
STREETS AND
ROADWAYS
500
500 Feet
CDIVI
DATE SEPT 2004
FIGURE No 5-4
u .1/ //'~"'<Ì!~// ." ¡f :/:'""~
,/ :', " ,l ;,;. Z, ¡Î //
/I:~~,/ / ,i' ¡::'-"'/.'Vi
ì \<,ç. , If ì/~
/ ~~tii /~/ /7--</'¥Jt&r:/ ,/>'
, '-%"¡:"i ," .. ~:"éDt:/
I' ~~~ j/ l<;;~5-
:",/»,8,t/ :: ',,-
./ ,', "';. /' "}f'
i' /~ /,~
-/ ¡ <':,1:
/ '1'/
:'(I-'s~'
~\",.-
$.'
'\
'"
"'"
N
+
Sources: Dubuque Area Geographic In kHTna uon Syslems(DAG1S), daled May 2000
D~,
~ck~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
500
,
500 Feet
CDI\I1
CROSSING
STRUCTURES
DATE SEPT,2O04
FIGURE No. 5-5
æ
LL
0
g
z+"
'tJ
I:
( )
C)
( )
....I
~
~ C
"- a
E ~
* ~ ~
1:' 1'5 ~
~ '" õ
e if¡ -'
0. .,; .,;
-g l' .~
1:5 .~ g
~ :J. <t
E
f-
a.
w
U)
w
ð
II
June 30, 2004
The Honornble Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
50 West. 13'" Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4864
Subject:
Bee Branch Creek Restoration PToject
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 Brnnch water8hed 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
AlÌl!nment Recommendation
By unanimous vote, the BBCAC has established the preferred alignment (see attachment) as starting
just north of the intersection of24~ Street and Elm Street and pToceeding southeasterly along Elm
Street to 22"" 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. Downstreaxn of the railroad, there
are twa 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 iFDL 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
City staff. City staff and the Consultant anticipate being able to make a
this portion of the alignment within 2 monthS.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
June 30, 2004
Page 2
Moratorium Recommendation
While City staff and the Consultant are evaluating this alignment alternative, the BBCAC recommends
that a moratorium be established for both alignments until July 1, 2005. Once the evaluation of the
lower alignment has been completed, the moratorium should be revised to reflect the final prefeITed
alignment.
Draina\!e Improvement Recommendation
The BBCAC met on June 24, 2004 to review and evaluate the preliminary Teconunendations presented
to the City Council at the May 17, 2004 Work Session. TheTe was considerable discussion about the
impacts of the open channel solution compared to the high costs of the pipe solution. TheBBCAC
voted 8-6 to make the previous recommendation "[mal". Note that the previous vote, priOT 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 pœfers the Pipe Alternative
because it pTeserves neighborhood accessibility, presents fewer health and safety
risks, and enhances the quality oflife."
Minority Drainal!e Improvement Recommendation
The ßÙnority reconunendation was made given the understanding that the pipe solution is preferred but
may not be affOTdable 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 from the
BBCAC is as follows:
. "The pipe alternative was preferred but the open channel alternative should be constructed if
the pipe alternative is deerned too expensive."
Construction Timetable Recommendation
The preferred Bee Branch drainage improvernent should be constructed as soon as possible.
Erosion Control Recommendation
The BBCAC Tecommends that the City Council enact an Erosion Control Ordinance.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
June 30, 2004
Page 3
Multi-jurisdictional Watershed Mana2ement Recommendation
The BBCAC reco=ends that the City pursue compTehensive multi-jurisdictional watershed
management planning for the drainage basins that across jurisdictional boundaries.
Runoff Reduction Best Manacrement Practices Recommendation
The BBCAC reco=ends 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 co=unity to
resolve the ongoing health and safety risks that exist with the current flooding situation.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Council in resolving this major issue that affects the City of
Dubuque.
Very truly yours,
Qcf r.J ~t~ _.oJ
Charlie WintelWood '
Chairman
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Ene: . Preferred Alignment Site Plan- 6/24/2004
eç:,: BBCAC Members
CDM
Gus Psihoyos, City Engineering
--
August 30, 2004
To: Dubuque City Council
Mayor TeITV, Duggan, Council members Nicholson, MichalsD, Buol, Cline, Connors,
and MaTkham
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. Originally, the
purpose of the BBCAC was ..to produce alternatives and improvements to the Bee
Branclr tlrat 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 of the
Committee, however, was changed. It was clear that CDM was hired to convince
Committee members that an open ditch through the middle of 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" costs associated with the ditch that
have not been factored into the cost estimate. We also believe the cost of the pipe has
been exaggerated. Clearly, if the BBCAC would have been able to fulfill its original
intent, the fmal recommendations would have been much different than those submitted.
That's why we're writing.
1. We support an accelerated timetable to bring the eleven pTojects included in the
Drainage Basin Master Plan (DBMP) to completion. We believe these efforts will
dramatically reduce the amount of water flowing into the north end neighborhoods
from the hillsides. We've already noticed a differencè with the completion of the
Carter Road basin. Unfortunately, a number of these projects are behind schedule.
2. We believe that in addition to the completion of the DBMP, effective erosion
controVconservation measures need to be enacted and enforced throughout the entire
watershed. It would requiTe cooperation and agreement among all levels of local
government so that one county-wide, comprehensive plan would be used.
3. We encourage the Council to seriously consider making the current Bee Branch
function at 100% capacity by straightening it out. The curves and angles reduce its
capacity considerably. We believe this option will displace feweT families and will be
more effective and less costly than the open ditch or pipe.
4. We support the common sense, cost-effective solutions that are outlined in the
enclosed article, Beyond Flood Control, Stormwater (March/April). These ideas
have not been fully explored by the City, nor were we allowed to 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 storm seweT, green
roofs, rain gardens, and rain barrels.
even at 60% efficiency, it handles rain up to 4 in./hour, or the equivalent of a 100-
vear 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 betteT 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, Stomrwater (Sept/Oct).
We strongly support testing porous concrete by using it to replace city sidewalks, parking
lots, and low traffic intersections. TheTe are a number of construction projects on the
table, including a new downtown school and community center that could be test sites. If
porous concrete proves to be as successful in Dubuque as it has in Milwaukee and other
cities, it should become part of our building code.
Please consider earmarking 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 could be administered similar to
Alliant Energy's rebate program for energy efficient appliances which requires contractor
certification and pToof of purchase. Please see the attached addendum prepared by
Wayne Klostermann. We believe the current storm water utility fee would support a
rebate program of this natUre. However, if we are in error, a $0.10 per month increase
would generate sufficient funds.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Rita Brothers
Impacted homeowner, Elm Street
Audrey Morey
Impacted resident, North End
NeighboThood Assn. SecTetary
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)
.
citvo, Du""'e
I
8ee 8"0'" Ali omeot Alteme""
Enclosed Channel (Railroad to 24th Street}! Open Channel 16th Street DetentIon to Rall,oad)
Item 51" Uoit "oitCoot au",1it Item Coot Not.
EACH $100.000.OD sa.O , MOO.POO
'"
EACH "'P.ODO.PO 16.0 , ,.,"O.OOD
Na
SF
UbUtt..
Fib" a Ii, Commuo""üoo LF
Wote""""
m,m.'" '",h.' . LF
. LF
10 LF
1Z LF
ZO LF
Sen'~ S~" LF
m.m.'.' 'o",e, . LF
1Z LF
JO LF
" LF
4Z LF
Sen'~ s~...Menho" 4ft NO
" NO
SIo""S",'"
0-""""'" 15 LF
16 LF
" LF
30 LF
" LF
.. LF
54 LF
'" LF
7Z LF
54 LF
~ d' HE LF
S""", Sewe' Men",,'.' 4' NO
5. NO
SIo""S....C,""8..,"I"'.~ NO ,ume4per,"""'""'"' 3
51""" s..."FES
15 NO
" NO
30 NO
54 NO
7Z NO
54 NO
o......dU"".' LF
N...",G..
DIam"'" "",., LF
LF
LF
LF
EJectitc
BES S..."U '0 LF $03.300.00
_. Commuolcalion LF $2.SO' SO.OO
"'0""
p",,'
Chenne'd....- LS $60,ODO.00 4.P
SIo",,"'" LS $25.000.00 4.0
T_Cuntn>
Lan,CI,,",", OAY $05.00 600.0 300 0",...",
RoedClo",,", OAY "0.00 1600.P JOOO",. e""
ero""o Coo"'" L5 $50.000.00 4.0 e4"""""'"
SUBTOTAL
,..,.,.,
COO"" Co"
Modi,mI U hi
Chooo"
Ov,,'~k,
Sod
Grand Subtotal
ConsUuction Cantin en
5Y
5Y
5Y
5Y
CY
CY
CY
5Y
5Y $S.OO "750.B
5Y $2.50 4554.5
TON ,,00.00 8253.0
TON "05.00 2829B
CY '20.00 10088.4
5Y ".25 21305.1
5Y SO.50 32651.7
5Y $S.OO
5Y S15.00 2466.7
SUBTOTAL
5Y
5Y
I.F
5Y
CY
CY
CY
EA
LF
CY
CY
5Y
CY
28 LF
36 LF
42 I.F
WK
WK
TON
5Y
I.F
5Y
LF
5Y
LF
CY
5Y
Grand Total
En ineerin I Canst Mn mU Adminl Permittin
"m. " 90% ,f to,"
",m." 10% 'I to,.
"',,"'" " 90% ""~'. RR ',d oOOvo
"',,"'" " 10% ""'". RR '00,.00..
"",mo RR ,"e "",", (4'OC)
""",'onfa,RR","'"
30,433.268
20%
6,086.654
15%
6,477,988
41.997,910
'-'.'
. .
O"b"a"e Bee Bcanoh Co" E,limale
A,,"maboo, ma;, want 10 "mbi,e with Ba'"", Cal" pa el
',d"de Co"e"ia' Rale" De Ih' of E"a"boo, et<.
10 No. Ca"llem A,,"mptioo . Coo"m "needed
1 SanitaN Sew", M"haie mN 400 FT (maxm"ml, 4 ft dia facie" Ih" 27in dia pipe" ,"when alhe"';,e coa",ed
Slacm Sew",
Ch'Mel dswalen,
Sto"" Sew", P"m i,
T",ffi,Cant"'i
E"'.oo Coo"'"
Ri '" G,ade"
E"""'" Fabri'
9
10
11
12
13
14
Tem '" Shesti'
SlNeW",i Ba"'"
Ca""",'e ChaMel Bottom
BacKfiU
Sidewalk'
T ,,'
Coo" Ma' mnt
.Hea 0"
19 P"em'" Removal
20 Clear'G",b
21 R"""atiooai Path
22 Exatvatioo
23 Law Flow Ch"'~ Tre-e,'
Wale""ai,
P,pe-O"",'el"",p"hoojaml'
M"haie e"N 400 FT Imax;m"ml, 4 ft dia fac Ie" tha' 27i, dia p'pe', 5ft wh" athelWi,e ,",,"iced
Pipe.RCPCI","i
4.5 ,et"p' fac d"",'oo of 4-6 mooth' ea'"
GW a?pea" to be withi, 2-3 ft of ""avatioo ba,e, ,equiri,g ,ame ",ti,,"", dewateri,
A,,"me ",ff", dam 00 daw,,'ream "d
Amme staged b"ildi'g f",m daw"lceam to "p,'coam which wdl ~iaw g",vity d,~",ge 10
",ffe"'am
A""meI4"7?71 pomp to ",,,"" dcy weathee now. Additiooal pomp would be cea"i,ed aft",wet
wealhee ""Is (1/ moolhl
A,,"me malac ~a"" ,ewe" '" ea,1 ,ide of pea,e,1 "" be mai,lai""d fac majority of """,,,"'00
wmdaw
Aftee demo i,"all 24" HOPE ,am", pipe ""',, ,h"""' a,d bulk head law flaw a,d "p,leeam ,ide
Ovecflaw goo, i,la "'a,""'I oulvert "",ation d"ri'g majac ""Is a,d i, p"mped '" '"
dow"leeam 8"d
Mirnm~ pum i,g ,eq"i,ed
La"" Clo,"ee (SlNeWee """i,gl' 100 d",m', 6 bam,ade. 6 ,ig"
Road C'o,"co, 6 bem",de. 6 ,i "
Per Li""I, Ceeek "",mple . ,% of lotal ,0,sI","'00 ",s< . ,h"id be Ie" " we "" co"e e""'g
aee pipe "d have our ,its d [or aI bot h"ge ""t,
Pemap' best a' aack"p Cal",. ",ie"'ate CY "d Ih" e'hee a"ume a void % of "y 30% with
,,'wtaf cock of 105 'blft3, ac a m""plieefrom Un"'" C",ek of 1.3 or 1.4 CY 10 TON. Nate Ihal
i,dud.. ouUet 10 10'h Slreel a,d exl'" al brid .. "d ,ulve'" d~"'a "g 10 ",""",
R.,,;sed,.;dthlo 30ft
A"ume lop 1/3 "',,'~ ..ea i, Medium
A"ume bottom 213 "',"""i ..ea "d bottom i, Co,o,ul Coir or ath.,
A,,"me out of b"k (b"ff", ..ea) i, .eeded "d muiched.
Ave ecetai,edh,,;ghlof12ftor12SFILF
CY" HaNCY
8 i,"'e, thi,k
CY.HaNCY
5 i,"'thick
Side,"" es-9 'noh thi"
T"rt G"", Acea- 6 i,"'e'
Flood ChaMe' aottom- 12 ,,"'e.
Used i, placed o[ seed fa, le"",e are"
I,dudes "",,","'a' ""ti, " ,mis,e",""u, "k,ow",
"dudes pe""""9. "at 8"9i,eeri'9 "d SUNey. geolech. ,,",IN"'oo ob,eNabo,. """"ad. "d
",ntcad admi"~"'tio'
Pla<:ed "d., I" th of rip",p a' """""' bortam. pi"' 10 ft.
U.. vat"s [com Eeasioo Fabri, ",'oulatio",
A..ume 0"' of b,"k a"", to be Iud ,"ss.
Assume " "',,""' a"", to be oalive pcaioe e seed"9.
"d"des ",a<>ways a' well " aileys. sid-" 1777) "d pack"9 ..eas, "" be "'e,ged later if
"""e..",
TypioaJly "sed [or Pavem""1 Remav" acea' ""d peaperties pu,"'"ed, WIU most likeiy have lawer
,," "'st due to l¡¡Ue """"'" of Irees "d sh",bs
Assume that peth is 10ft wide at" 1""9th o[ "tire opper co"h
Top'" .""vali" a..umesthal Low Flow ChaMei 's oo,slcu"ed 4 ft above a..ume, base or
chaM~ '0 side,;o e "'st""," ced",ed by 12 ft 3H'W)
To" E=vatio' q",tity do.. ,at i,dude Law Flaw "',""", which would ,edu," tol~ .""vati".
A.sume Law Aow Ch""""' is lI"d wiit1 uarry slo,,' at" Ihe '""
ofthe a "" ,ha""~
Pi e- Ou""e lea', Cle.s 58 (8")
Are H d",I.. Mas s ad'9 800 Resd"bat)
MI,im"m de 6.,"
A..umed '0 be located "dM e"h ou'" Ii" ,'aled for removat
A..umethal foob'9S are 6'x3', 10',3', 0',3' "d bartam ,lab has thi""'e.. of 16"
p... ,,"
. .
ctiVol D"'" "'
Be. Bm"'" AUa"m,"tAJlem.',.,
Open Channel
I
Item S~e U"it U,itCa" Ou'"ti Item Co" Nota
EACH $100,000.00 67.0 $ 6.700.000
EACH $150,000.00 12.0 $ 1.600.000
NO
SF
Utilitl"
Fib'" 0 'a Cammunl""'a" I.F $4.00 '650.0 $14,600.00
Wet"""""
Oleme'" ""'" 6 I.F
6 I.F
10 I.F
12 I.F
20 I.F
Senl Sewe' I.F
Olemel", ,""'.. 6 I.F
12 I.F
30 I.F
36 I.F
42 I.F
Sen' Sewe' Menha" 4ft NO
5ft NO
Sta<m Sew..
Diemel.. '""'.. 15 I.F
16 I.F
24 I.F 16.0
30 I.F 72.0
36 I.F
.. I.F
54 I.F '60.0
5(] I.F
72 I.F 6.0
54 I.F 6.0
w" HE I.F 0.0
SID"" Sew.. Menh~e' 4ft NO
5ft NO
Sta<m Sewe' C.1ch B", ¡ '"'e~ NO
S"'"' Sew.. FES
15 NO
24 NO
30 NO
54 NO
72 NO
54 NO
Ovem... U""e, I.F
N- Ga,
Oiame'" I""'" I.F
I.F
I.F
I.F
Er_a
BES Street" h'" I.F $33,300.00
M"a. Camm",lca'a" I.F $2.50' $0.00
Go"o..1
p"", I"
Ch","~dewaleri, LS $60,000,00 4,0 $320.000.00 A,,"me 4 """"..,~
SID""'- LS $20.000.00 4.0 $60.000.00 A""",e 4 oanb"ad3
T""",,Coo""
L.aneC~'~ OAY $35,00 1200.0 $42.000.00 4 3000 ,..'"
Raed C~"'.. DAY $10.00 1200.0 $12.000.00 4 300 Ooy' each
.....""C",,"" LS $50,000.00 4.0 $200.000.00 As"""e 4 """b"ad3
SUBTOTAL 99' 33'
Chon".
av...bonk,
Sod
Grand Subtotal
Con.wetton Cantin en
SY
SY
SY
SY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
SY
TON
TON
CY
SY
SY
SY
SY
SY
SY
IF
SY
CY
CY
CY
EA
IF
CY
CY
SY
CY
20 IF
" IF
42 IF
WI(
WI(
TON
SY
IF
SY
IF
SY
IF
CY
SY
Grand Total
En ineerin 'Canst Mn mU Admin' Permittin
14241.2
37415.8
1288.9
115050.1
211980.0
24220.0
A",ma" 90% of lotaJ
"ma " 10% of lot.
SUBTOTAL
'.". 900
4181.'
1286.1
1320.0
""me" 90% of to~1
A44U~" 10% oftotaJ
""ma RR ,lie ""om (4' OC)
",m,tion <or RR "",,'"
",ma",-edW<" ,trucMei bedittll ~a'bow)
$ 21.557.847
20%
4,311,569
15%
3.880,413
$ 29,749,829
Dubuaue Bee Branch Cost Estimate
Assumptions (mav want to camb,ne '"'th Backu Calcs 'ace)
Include Conver"on Rates, Depths of Excavation, etc
10 No Cost Item Assumption. Confirm as needed
1 Sanitary Sewer Manhole every 400 FT (maximum), 4 ~ dia fa< less than 271n dia pipes, 5~ when otherv"se required
Pipe. Ducble Iron, push an joints
2 Storm Sewer Manhole every 400 FT (maximum), 4 ~ dia far less than 271n dia pipes, 5[t when otherwise required
Pipe- RCP Class III
3 Channel dewatenna 4-5 setups fa< duration of 4-6 months each
GW appears to be with,n 2-3 ~ of excavation base, requ;nng some continuous dewatenng
Assume coffer dam on downstream end
Assume staged building from downstream ta upstream which will allow gravity drainage to cofferdam
Assume (4"'777) pump to control dry weather flow. Additional pump would be required after wet weather
events (11 month)
4 Storm Sewer Pumoina Assume malor storm sewers on east side of project can be maintained for malonty of construction window.
After demo Install 24"' HOPE carner pipe acmss channel and bulk head law flow and upstream side.
OverlIow goes into cMnneV culvert excavation dunng malor events and" pumped out on downstream end
Minimal pumping required
5 Traffic Control Lane Closure (StrucMe crossing) 100 drums. 6 barncade, 6 signs
Road Closure: 6 bamcade, 6 signs
Per Uncoln Creek example - x% of total construction cost - should be less as we can reuse existing Bee pipe
6 Erosion Control and have our s~e dry for all but huge events
Perhaps best on Backup Cales. calculate CY and then e,ther assume a void % of say 30% with unit wi af
rock of 165 Iblft3, or a multiplier from Uncoln Creek of 1.3 or 1.4 CY to TON. Note tha<lndudes outiet!o 16th
7 Riorao Grade II Street and extra at "dges and culverts discharging to channel
Revised wdith to 30 ~
6 Erosion Fabnc 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 Tem raN Sheetina Average retained height of 12 ft a< 12SFI LF
10 StnJctural Backfill CY'2ToniCY
11 Concrete Channel Bottom 8 inches thick
12 Backflll CY' 2 TonlCY
13 Sidewalks 5 inch thick
14 Toosoil Side slopes. 9 inch thick
Tu~ Grass Area. 6 inches
Flood Channel Bottom-12 inches
15 Sad Used in placed of seed fa< terrace areas
16 Cantin encv Inctudes construction contingency, miscellaneous unknowns
Indudes permitting. final engineenng and suNey, geotech, construction obseNation. railroad. and contract
1SA En ineennaJ Cons! Manomnt administration
17 Rite, Fa"c. Heav Duty Placed unde, length of nprap on channel bottom, plus 10 It
18 Seedina Use values "am Erosion Fa"c calculations
Assume out of bank areas to be tu~ grass
Assume ,n channel areas to be native pra;ne type seeding.
19 Pavement Removal Indudes roadways as well as alleys, sidewalks (777) and pa"'ing areas, can be changed later if necessary
Typically used for Pavement Removal areas and properties purchased, Will most likely have lower unit cost
20 Clear & Grub due to little presence of trees and shrubs
21 Recreational Path Assume that path is 1 0 ~ wide along length of entire upper reach
Topsoil excavation assumes that Low Flow Channel is construc!ed 4 ~ above assumes base of channel so
22 Excavation side slope distance reduced by 12 ~ (3H:IV)
Total Excavation quantity does not Indude Low Flow channel 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 (8in)
Fi,e Hydrants- Max spad"" 600 (Residential)
Minimum depth 5.5 ft
11- Assumed to be located under each curb line slated for removal
'" " .,"'>1 Exis:.BeeBranchsewer No additional rehabilitation wo'" required.