The University of Iowa has pitched a $96M parking ramp next to Carver-Hawkeye Arena. What to know.
The University of Iowa is prioritizing arena and medical parking as well as child care in its latest proposals for the Iowa Board of Regents.
The plans include a $96 million five-level parking ramp next to Carver-Hawkeye Arena that will replace the existing parking lot as well as a new, standalone childcare facility to support UI Health Care and Carver College of Medicine staff. The school is also planning updates to one of the oldest residence halls on campus. Each project will go in front of the Iowa Board of Regents at its next meeting on Thursday, Feb. 27.
Here is what to know about the three significant projects:
The University of Iowa seeks board approval to build a five-level, 1,259-stall parking ramp between the College of Dentistry and Carver-Hawkeye Arena, a project estimated to cost $96 million which will be funded by Parking and Replacement Funds.
The parking ramp will primarily serve UI and UI Health Care staff but also the regular crowds that visit CHA for basketball and wrestling. The overarching project includes upgrades to nearby lots, a new pedestrian crossing at Hawkins Drive and Newton Road, a new left turn lane at Valley Avenue and Newton Road, and a new vehicle canopy for the College of Dentistry.
According to board documents, the project will save "over $100,000 in deferred maintenance, which would be removed through this project." The ramp will have angled parking spaces, and traffic will flow in only one direction within it, similar to the nearby Hawkeye Parking Ramp location north of Kinnick Stadium.
More: Mayor Teague notes year of 'perseverance and progress' in 2025 State of the City, eyes future
If approved by the Board of Regents, construction will begin in the spring of 2025 and is expected to be finished by the fall of 2026.
"With the additional growth in parking from the planned inpatient tower, a reduction in surface parking from other projects such as the water tower relocation and the new Health Sciences Academic Building, and with immediate proximity to Carver-Hawkeye Arena, there is an important need to add efficient parking in this part of our campus," said Rod Lehnertz, senior vice president for finance and operations in a UI release. "There is also a critical need to provide additional parking close to where UI Health Care staff care for Iowans visiting our hospital."
UI Health Care is seeking board approval to build new child care facility similar to the one currently at Westlawn, which serves about 100 children for Ul Health Care and Carver College of Medicine faculty and staff. According to board documents, the Westlawn facility on Newton Road requires "$32 million to $37 million in deferred maintenance."
The current childcare facility is slated for demolition to make way for a new cancer facility, and board documents described it as being "outdated."
The University of Iowa plans to build the new childcare facility near the UIHC Pomerantz Family Pavillion, south of Melrose Avenue. The projected cost is $7.5- $10 million, which will be funded by University Hospital Building Usage Funds.
More: University of Iowa's nearly 100-year-old Memorial Union is undergoing a $75 million renovation
If the Board of Regents approves the project, construction will begin in 2026 and finish in 2027. The Regents will need to approve the final budget and design at a later meeting.
Bright Horizons operates the Westlawn facility and will take the reins at the new center, which the University of Iowa said is important.
"Having child care services close to UI Health Care Medical Center is an important recruitment and retention tool, enhancing the well-being of faculty and staff with young families," Lehnertz said in the UI's release.
The university will also seek $2.4 million to renovate the first floor of the Mayflower Residence Hall, located at 1110 North Dubuque St, funded by University Housing Renewal and Improvement Funds. If approved, the renovation will begin in the spring and be completed by the summer of 2025. The renovation project will remove "$100,000 in deferred maintenance."
More: The University of Iowa's Mayflower dorm will stay open to accommodate large numbers
Mayflower was partially renovated in 2009 following the 2008 flood and hasn't been updated since. According to board documents, the proposed remodel will include "aging services and finishes on the first floor to make the building more inviting and attractive to both first-year and returning students," aligning with the university's goal to "re-invest wisely in existing facilities to extend their life and provide a high-quality student experience. "
The Iowa Board of Regents approved the University of Iowa's request to sell Mayflower in February 2023 as part of the university's five-year plan for its housing and dining program. Aiming to bring residents closer to the heart of campus, Mayflower was listed on Realtor.com for $45 million. However, 2024's record enrollment numbers motivated the University of Iowa to temporarily pause the sale of one of its oldest dormitories.
More: Mayor Teague notes year of 'perseverance and progress' in 2025 State of the City, eyes future
The first-floor project will update flooring and wall treatments and replace sections of the ceiling. The current multipurpose room will be transformed into a study with four adjacent and separate study rooms. The fitness center will be expanded and relocated to the front of the building, and the computer lab will be downsized to "reflect reduced demand while repurposing the space."
Iowa City Press-Citizen reporter Ryan Hansen contributed to this article.
Jessica Rish is an entertainment, dining and education reporter for the Iowa City Press-Citizen. She can be reached at JRish@press-citizen.com or on X, formerly known as Twitter, @rishjessica_
This article originally appeared on Iowa City Press-Citizen: UI reveals plans for a $96M parking ramp next to Carver-Hawkeye Arena
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline
A privately owned company is proposing a pipeline across five states. While some of the state governments appear to be on board, the project is facing backlash from a large and formidable population: property owners. The pipeline, known as Summit Carbon Solutions, would span 2,500 miles and transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to a permanent underground storage site in North Dakota. Construction of the $9 billion pipeline is expected to begin this year, with operations kicking off in 2026. In June 2024, the project received regulatory approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission, despite landowner protests. Julie Glade and her husband, Paul, are Iowans who oppose the project because of its use of eminent domain. Their property aligns with the proposed route, and in 2022 the couple was visited by a land agent. "The guy who came to our door wanted us to sit down and sign it without reading it," Glade tells Reason. "They swooped in and tried to contact as many people as possible right away before the people knew what the consequences were. It's very unethical." Several other landowners in the state share the Glades' worries. During a hearing conducted by the Iowa Utility Commission, landowner Joan Gaul testified against the pipeline, which she said would cross a large portion of her farmland. Gaul said Summit Carbon Solutions mailed two easements, which would give the pipeline a legal right to her land, to her without notice. "This letter came telling us about taking our land using eminent domain. It was a difficult pill to swallow," she said. Gaul said she didn't accept the easements and has indicated that she will continue to fight the project. The Glades visit the Iowa Capitol nearly every week to voice their opposition to the pipeline. They are joined by what the couple calls a diverse coalition united by their concern for the basic constitutional right to land ownership. "We have MAGA Republicans and we have lefties. We put our differences aside and we work together," she says. The Glades' efforts could soon pay off. In May the state Senate passed House File 639, which would prevent CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain unless the company proves the pipeline meets the definition of public use. The bill would also prevent CO2 pipelines from operating longer than 25 years. The bill is awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is reportedly weighing opinions from pipeline supporters and detractors. If passed, the bill would represent a significant win for the rights of Iowa property owners. It would also be the latest setback for the Summit Carbon Solutions project. After the company launched a blitz of eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law in March preventing carbon dioxide pipelines from receiving eminent domain permission in the state. The post Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline appeared first on
UPI
5 hours ago
- UPI
NCAA pact to pay current, former athletes to transform college sports
Basketball great Caitlin Clark, now a professional, still could reap a great deal of money from the University of Iowa as a result of the settlement to which the National Collegiate Athletic Association agreed on Friday. File Photo by Corey Sipkin/UPI | License Photo The business of college sports was upended after a federal judge approved a settlement between the National Collegiate Athletic Conference and former college athletes Friday. After a lengthy litigation process, the NCAA has agreed to provide $2.8 billion in back pay to former and current college athletes, while allowing schools to directly pay athletes for the first time. Joshua Lens, whose scholarship centers on the intersection of sports, business and the law, tells the story of this settlement and explains its significance within the rapidly changing world of college sports. What will change for players and schools with this settlement? The terms of the settlement included the following changes: The NCAA and conferences will distribute approximately $2.8 billion in media rights revenue back pay to thousands of athletes who competed since 2016. Universities will have the ability to enter name, image and likeness, or NIL, agreements with student-athletes. So, schools can now, for example, pay them to appear in ads for the school or for public appearances. Each university that opts into the settlement can disburse up to $20.5 million to student-athletes in the 2025-26 academic year, a number that will likely rise in future academic years. Athletes' NIL agreements with certain individuals and entities will be subject to an evaluation that will determine whether the NIL compensation exceeds an acceptable range based on a perceived fair market value, which could result in the athlete having to restructure or forgo the deal. The NCAA's maximum sport program scholarship limits will be replaced with maximum team roster size limits for universities that choose to be part of the settlement. Why did the NCAA agree to settle with, rather than fight, the plaintiffs? In 2020, roughly 14,000 current and former college athletes filed a class action lawsuit, House vs. NCAA, seeking damages for past restrictions on their ability to earn money. For decades, college athletics' primary governing body, the NCAA, permitted universities whose athletics programs compete in Division I to provide their athletes with scholarships that would help cover their educational expenses, such as tuition, room and board, fees and books. By focusing only on educational expenses, the NCAA was able to reinforce the notion that collegiate athletes are amateurs who may not receive pay for participating in athletics, despite making money for their schools. A year later, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in a separate case, Alston vs. NCAA, that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by limiting the amount of education-related benefits, such as laptops, books and musical instruments, that universities could provide to their athletes. The ruling challenged the NCAA's amateurism model, while opening the door for future lawsuits tied to athlete compensation. It also burnished the plaintiffs' case in House vs. NCAA, compelling college athletics' governing body to take part in settlement talks. What were some of the key changes that took place in college sports after the Supreme Court's decision in Alston vs. NCAA? Following Alston, the NCAA permitted universities to dole out several thousand dollars in what's called "education benefits pay" to student-athletes. This could include cash bonuses for maintaining a certain grade-point average or simply satisfying NCAA academic eligibility requirements. But contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court's Alston decision didn't let college athletes be paid via NIL deals. The NCAA continued to maintain that this would violate its principles of amateurism. However, many states, beginning with California, introduced or passed laws that required universities within their borders to allow their athletes to accept NIL compensation. With over a dozen states looking to pass similar laws, the NCAA folded on June 30, 2021, changing its policy so athletes could accept NIL compensation for the first time. Will colleges and universities be able to weather all of these financial commitments? The settlement will result in a windfall for certain current and former collegiate athletes, with some expected to receive several hundred thousands of dollars. Universities and their athletics departments, on the other hand, will have to reallocate resources or cut spending. Some will cut back on travel expenses for some sports, others have paused facility renovations, while other athletic departments may resort to cutting sports whose revenue does not exceed their expenses. As Texas A&M University athletic director Trev Alberts has explained, however, that college sports does not have a revenue problem -- it has a spending problem. Even in the well-resourced Southeastern Conference, for example, many universities' athletics expenses exceed its revenue. Do you see any future conflicts on the horizon? Many observers hope the settlement brings stability to the industry. But there's always a chance that the settlement will be appealed. More potential challenges could involve Title IX, the federal gender equity statute that prohibits discrimination based on sex in schools. What if, for example, a university subject to the statute distributes the vast majority of revenue to male athletes? Such a scenario could violate Title IX. On the other hand, a university that more equitably distributes revenue among male and female athletes could face legal backlash from football athletes who argue that they should be entitled to more revenue, since their games earn the big bucks. And as I pointed out in a recent law review article, an athlete or university may challenge the new enforcement process that will attempt to limit athletes' NIL compensation within an acceptable range that is based on a fair market valuation. The NCAA and the conferences named in the lawsuit have hired the accountancy firm Deloitte to determine whether athletes' compensation from NIL deals fall within an acceptable range based on a fair market valuation, looking to other collegiate and professional athletes to set a benchmark range. If athletes and universities have struck deals that are too generous, both could be penalized, according to the terms of the settlement. Finally, the settlement does not address -- let alone solve -- issues facing international student-athletes who want to earn money via NIL. Most international student-athletes' visas, and the laws regulating them, heavily limit their ability to accept compensation for work, including NIL pay. Some lawmakers have tried to address this issue in the past, but it hasn't been a priority for the NCAA, as it has lobbied Congress for a federal NIL law. Joshua Lens is an associate professor of Instruction of sport & recreation management at the University of Iowa. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NCAA will pay its current and former athletes in an agreement that will transform college sports
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Joshua Lens, University of Iowa (THE CONVERSATION) The business of college sports was upended after a federal judge approved a settlement between the NCAA and former college athletes on June 6, 2025. After a lengthy litigation process, the NCAA has agreed to provide US$2.8 billion in back pay to former and current college athletes, while allowing schools to directly pay athletes for the first time. Joshua Lens, whose scholarship centers on the intersection of sports, business and the law, tells the story of this settlement and explains its significance within the rapidly changing world of college sports. What will change for players and schools with this settlement? The terms of the settlement included the following changes: - The NCAA and conferences will distribute approximately $2.8 billion in media rights revenue back pay to thousands of athletes who competed since 2016. - Universities will have the ability to enter name, image and likeness, or NIL, agreements with student-athletes. So schools can now, for example, pay them to appear in ads for the school or for public appearances. - Each university that opts in to the settlement can disburse up to $20.5 million to student-athletes in the 2025-26 academic year, a number that will likely rise in future academic years. Athletes' NIL agreements with certain individuals and entities will be subject to an evaluation that will determine whether the NIL compensation exceeds an acceptable range based on a perceived fair market value, which could result in the athlete having to restructure or forego the deal. - The NCAA's maximum sport program scholarship limits will be replaced with maximum team roster size limits for universities that choose to be part of the settlement. Why did the NCAA agree to settle with, rather than fight, the plaintiffs? In 2020, roughly 14,000 current and former college athletes filed a class action lawsuit, House v. NCAA, seeking damages for past restrictions on their ability to earn money. For decades, college athletics' primary governing body, the NCAA, permitted universities whose athletics programs compete in Division I to provide their athletes with scholarships that would help cover their educational expenses, such as tuition, room and board, fees and books. By focusing only on educational expenses, the NCAA was able to reinforce the notion that collegiate athletes are amateurs who may not receive pay for participating in athletics, despite making money for their schools. A year later, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in a separate case, Alston v. NCAA, that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by limiting the amount of education-related benefits, such as laptops, books and musical instruments, that universities could provide to their athletes. The ruling challenged the NCAA's amateurism model while opening the door for future lawsuits tied to athlete compensation. It also burnished the plaintiffs' case in House v. NCAA, compelling college athletics' governing body to take part in settlement talks. What were some of the key changes that took place in college sports after the Supreme Court's decision in Alston v. NCAA? Following Alston, the NCAA permitted universities to dole out several thousand dollars in what's called ' education benefits pay ' to student-athletes. This could include cash bonuses for maintaining a certain GPA or simply satisfying NCAA academic eligibility requirements. But contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court's Alston decision didn't let college athletes be paid via NIL deals. The NCAA continued to maintain that this would violate its principles of amateurism. However, many states, beginning with California, introduced or passed laws that required universities within their borders to allow their athletes to accept NIL compensation. With over a dozen states looking to pass similar laws, the NCAA folded on June 30, 2021, changing its policy so athletes could accept NIL compensation for the first time. Will colleges and universities be able to weather all of these financial commitments? The settlement will result in a windfall for certain current and former collegiate athletes, with some expected to receive several hundred thousands of dollars. Universities and their athletics departments, on the other hand, will have to reallocate resources or cut spending. Some will cut back on travel expenses for some sports, others have paused facility renovations, while other athletic departments may resort to cutting sports whose revenue does not exceed their expenses. As Texas A&M University athletic director Trev Alberts has explained, however, that college sports does not have a revenue problem – it has a spending problem. Even in the well-resourced Southeastern Conference, for example, many universities' athletics expenses exceed its revenue. Do you see any future conflicts on the horizon? Many observers hope the settlement brings stability to the industry. But there's always a chance that the settlement will be appealed. More potential challenges could involve Title IX, the federal gender equity statute that prohibits discrimination based on sex in schools. What if, for example, a university subject to the statute distributes the vast majority of revenue to male athletes? Such a scenario could violate Title IX. On the other hand, a university that more equitably distributes revenue among male and female athletes could face legal backlash from football athletes who argue that they should be entitled to more revenue, since their games earn the big bucks. And as I pointed out in a recent law review article, an athlete or university may challenge the new enforcement process that will attempt to limit athletes' NIL compensation within an acceptable range that is based on a fair market valuation. The NCAA and the conferences named in the lawsuit have hired the accountancy firm Deloitte to determine whether athletes' compensation from NIL deals fall within an acceptable range based on a fair market valuation, looking to other collegiate and professional athletes to set a benchmark range. If athletes and universities have struck deals that are too generous, both could be penalized, according to the terms of the settlement. Finally, the settlement does not address – let alone solve – issues facing international student-athletes who want to earn money via NIL. Most international student-athletes' visas, and the laws regulating them, heavily limit their ability to accept compensation for work, including NIL pay. Some lawmakers have tried to address this issue in the past, but it hasn't been a priority for the NCAA, as it has lobbied Congress for a federal NIL law.
