MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 29, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FEMA Representative Earl Henricksen and Members of the Sutliff Bridge Authority: Sutliff Bridge
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan
Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan: Year Round County Cleanup in Johnson County for 2009
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:17 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
FEMA Private Non-Profit Task Force Leader Stephanie Severino said she is working with most of the private non-profits in the State. She said Sutliff Bridge Authority applied to FEMA for assistance with repair of the Sutliff Bridge. According to their policy the Sutliff Bridge Authority is not eligible as a private non-profit applicant, because the bridge is considered a recreational area, and private non-profit recreational areas are not eligible under the public assistance program. Severino said counties, states, and cities are eligible for recreational facilities.
Severino said, since the County owns the bridge and leases the bridge to Sutliff, the County could assume full responsibility for the bridge, and then the repairs would be eligible through FEMA. She repeated that the bridge is not eligible under the Authority. Severino said this is a decision the Board needs to make and FEMA can't guide them or make any suggestions. Severino said all she can do is provide information to the Board regarding what would be eligible under the program. She said she is sure they have all seen the lease and it states that if the bridge were to fall into the Cedar River, which it did, that the bridge would be demolished and the area returned to a natural grassy area.
Severino said that if it would remain with the Bridge Authority, FEMA would help them with that, because it would be a health and safety hazard to have that bridge in the state it is in currently. FEMA wouldn't be able to assist with repair costs or any sort of construction for the bridge unless it goes through the County. The County would have to assume responsibility now and hold that responsibility indefinitely. Severino said the County would have to assume responsibility for any maintenance and construction, and that anything to do with damage or general maintenance of the bridge could not be transferred back to the Authority or to another group. She said it would have to be held with the County. Stutsman clarified that the County would have to take the bridge back in its entirety forever. Severino said that is correct.
Neuzil said they are just throwing out scenarios, but to make it a little clearer, if the County was to reassume the responsibility of the bridge, he asked what FEMA will be able to provide for the bridge. Severino said FEMA funds are only available if there are specific plans they want to put in place. She said, if the situation was one where the County wanted to repair the bridge, then there would be funding available to help with that. Neuzil asked if there is a timetable for this. Severino responded there isn't a timetable and that they have identified the damage and they know what is going on with the bridge. She said FEMA experts have evaluated it and there isn't a timetable.
Harney asked Severino if the funding available through FEMA is under the historical side of FEMA's funding. Severino said it is under the Public Assistance Program, which is one section of FEMA. She explained FEMA is divided into three parts, which are individual assistance, public assistance, and hazard mitigation.
Harney asked if it will be eligible under the historical program. Severino said there isn't really a separate historical program, but historical definitely has an interest in this due to the age of the bridge and its rarity. She said there is a review process through the Special Considerations Historical Team. Harney said he understood there was a historical program, but he must have had bad information.
Stutsman asked how much money would be available to repair the bridge. Severino said it is based on cost. FEMA Representative Earl Henricksen said it is his understanding that the historical funding aspect wouldn't apply, because the historic value of what was lost is gone, because it had to be demolished to get it out of the river. He said that under historic funding, if there is a significant part of the structure that could be rebuilt, historic funding could apply. Henricksen said unfortunately nothing was salvageable and so it has no historic value. He said even if they built a perfect replica, it has no historic value, because the construction would be all new materials. Severino said that is part of the review process. She said the Secretary of Interior Standards reviews the project and the bridge would have to go through that process.
Henricksen said he thinks a major question is what the bridge is going to look like if they get the bridge repaired. He said it is his understanding that FEMA will be able to fund the lowest priced option, which might be some kind of concrete beam with the same surface area going out to the old bridge. Henricksen said it won't have an arch and will just have handrails for safety. He said they would build the cheapest bridge they could to connect to the old structure. Severino said the design and everything else can't be addressed fully until they have determined whether the County will assume responsibility for the bridge. She said that is the first step.
Harney asked what the replacement costs are to the County. Severino said there is a 90/10 cost share, so 90% is the federal share and 10% is paid by the State. She said there may be costs associated with staff time and some of those costs are factored into the project. Stutsman asked if there are any maintenance requirements or accessibility, or any of those things, once this money is put into place. She asked what the County's ongoing liability would be if they did assume responsibility of the Sutliff Bridge. Severino said it would be general repair and maintenance costs. She said if a future event occurs and causes a structural issue with the bridge, then the County would be responsible for those repair costs also. Severino said FEMA's general counsel says that part of the original 1984 lease states that the Sutliff Authority would be responsible for holding a $1 million causality liability policy. She said if they still want some agreement with the Authority allowing for them to use the bridge, and requiring them to hold some kind of insurance for injury and personal injury against any tort, they can do that. She said anything that has to deal with general maintenance, repair, damage, and the like, must remain with the County.
Meyers asked for clarification on what was said about building a most basic structure to get out to the old part of the bridge. Severino said they can't say exactly what it would be, because if they say FEMA will do something for them, and they say that is what they want, then FEMA funding isn't really available, because it has to be based on something they would do on their own. FEMA, the County, and maybe the Authority would work with an engineer, which part of that process has already started, and come up with something that would be agreeable to everyone. She said it would need to be cost-effective and reasonable. That is important when they work with taxpayer dollars. Meyers asked if they try to replicate what was lost, would that be covered by FEMA or is that something that will need to be covered by private funding. Severino said FEMA puts things back to pre-disaster function, design, and capacity. She said it may not be cost effective for FEMA to go back and build a replica of a pin truss bridge. She said it is her understanding, having not visited the bridge, that it is used for pedestrian traffic and bicycles. Severino said FEMA would restore the bridge to a pedestrian and bicycle traffic bridge that would be safe and be able to hold the same capacity.
Stutsman clarified that it would just be the basics. Severino said that is correct. Neuzil asked if outside resources could be combined with FEMA funding to pay for enhancements of the basic structure FEMA would provide. Severino said that would be termed an improved project where FEMA would say it is going to take so many dollars to put it back to its pre-disaster function. If the County decides they want to add another $300,000 for example, for frills, then they will be responsible for that. Neuzil asked for clarification, that is allowed. Severino said yes, that is allowed under the program, but FEMA wants to make sure that, should they decide to go with FEMA's reasonable, cost-effective option, if they receive funding, FEMA would deduct that amount, since it is the funding of last resort.
FEMA Contractor Support Crew Leader Steve Hopkins said they would restore the bridge with a walkway and a handrail. The improved project that Severino is referring to would have a cap, for example $500,000, that's where it would stay. If the County went over and above that amount to replicate the old bridge, that would be the County's financial responsibility. Meyers said it wouldn't be deducted. Severino said there would not be a deduction, if it was clear that the funding was for additions above and beyond the basic project. She said, however, if they receive donations earmarked to restore the bridge to its original state, then that would be deducted. Severino said that through documentation, they can clearly show improvements above and beyond the basic design.
R. Sullivan said the way this has worked since 1984, is that this group has raised money, and when some of the planks have needed replacement, these are the people who buy the wood, cut the wood, put the wood in place, and secure it. He said now Severino is saying that if the County took over the bridge, it would have to do all the maintenance. R. Sullivan asked if it would be acceptable to have some kind of work day where volunteers were invited to work on the bridge. Severino said yes, if people want to donate money for the upkeep of the bridge, that would be fine or if they wanted to volunteer time that would be fine. She said there couldn't be any formal agreement of work for money. R. Sullivan said it would need to be strictly a volunteer activity.
Henricksen said he believes they need to understand the process of how dollars are capped for improved projects. He suggested imagining they are going to build a pedestrian bridge with the exact same footprint to lead out to the old part of the bridge. They build that and FEMA is going to pay the exact dollars it costs to do that. Henricksen said, if it runs over what the estimates were in the beginning, FEMA will pay every single dollar. But if they decide they are going to have an improved project, they make the best possible estimate they can, and then they cap it at that. Henricksen said they may get more FEMA funding, if they opt to not go with an improved project because they are getting paid actual dollars.
R. Sullivan said his concern is more about the existing stuff, because that would still have ongoing maintenance. R. Sullivan said he is thinking more about the future relationship between the County and that group. Severino said when they talked they spoke about a different relationship they have for another recreation area in the County. R. Sullivan said he has been thinking about Walker Park where the Old Settlers are and they take care of things around there. Stutsman said the bottom line is that this is now the County's bridge again, and she is just intrigued by the previous agreement. She said it is obvious to her that the County didn't want to have anything to do with the bridge. Stutsman said it has been a number of years since that time, but she is surprised that the Sutliff Bridge Authority signed off on this. Stutsman said she would like to go back and review the minutes to see the thinking of the Board of Supervisors at that time, because it has been quite some time since that was done. Henricksen said they bring up that the state of the bridge has passed the pin test, which the Authority has done through an engineering firm. He said it is amazing that whole bridge passed the safety element.
Stutsman said there wouldn't be any requirements by FEMA to bring the bridge up to a higher level of standard than it was when it went down. Severino said it would just need to meet safety standards. Stutsman asked if it would be required to be accessible by cars or any of those types of things. Severino replied no. Neuzil said it brings up a good point about the existing section as compared to the new section. He asked if the existing structure would need to be updated to meet safety standards or just the section that was demolished. Neuzil explained that safety standards are different than they were in 1984.
Severino said FEMA allows for any cost that would be associated with codes and standards and that would be covered by FEMA. Sutliff Bridge Authority member Randy Howell said there was damage done to the two remaining spans caused by the flood. He said in talking with FEMA he learned money would be provided for the repair of that, including both approaches. Severino said yes, both approaches. Howell said they have an engineer that is going to certify the repair. Severino emphasized the total repair of the bridge, not just the new section versus the old section, is considered a total project.
Neuzil said his hunch is that they will want to have it meet the requirements of today's standards. He said this is the first real approach to the Board to take the bridge back, and he would like to give that some thought for a little while. Neuzil said they do need to think beyond the liability and everything that is associated with that. He said he thinks there is some value in having the Federal government give them an opportunity to help pay for things; that is really nice. Harney said he thinks the Board needs some good legal advice and direction from the County Attorney on liability and repossession issues. He also said they need to know who has the liability for any event that occurs on the bridge, because it is used for recreation and special events. Harney said the Board needs to work through those details before they make their final decision.
Severino said they will need to go back and make the lease retroactive and ask that it be amended so the County would assume responsibility. She said that FEMA already said they will approve it, if that's what the Board chooses to do. Stutsman asked if the agreement states that if anything happens to the bridge, that basically they don't do anything. County Attorney Janet Lyness said they would basically have to amend the agreement and say the County is repossessing the bridge. Lyness asked Severino if she is saying it would have to be done retroactively. Severino said they would have to say they have made the decision at this point to go back and amend the lease retroactive to the time before the disaster, because that is what they want to do. She said that as it stands it looks like it would just be cost associated with demolition and returning the banks to a natural grassy area. Lyness said the decision to make is whether the Board wants to take back the bridge with all the liabilities and maintenance costs. She said, if the Board wants to do that, they can proceed forward and FEMA will help give money to help rebuild it to its pre-disaster state, but it will be the County's responsibility from then on.
R. Sullivan said some Sutliff Bridge Authority members know what the liability and maintenance costs are in a given year. Sutliff Bridge Authority President Randy Brannaman said he estimates the cost of liability insurance is about $2,500 annually and maintenance costs are close to about $4,000 annually. He said they bought a lot of plank in the last five years. Lyness said the Board would want an agreement with the Authority that requires the Authority to secure special insurance, if they have an event on the bridge. Severino agreed.
Neuzil said it will take time to review this with their legal counsel. Stutsman said she would like to hear from County Insurance Agent Bob Saunders also. Severino invited Board members to contact her with any further questions. Neuzil said he knew it would be an uphill battle trying to come up with the costs associated with repairing the bridge and this will make things much easier. R. Sullivan asked Lyness to get in touch with Saunders, and the Board will wait for her report. Lyness said they can check with Secondary Roads regarding maintenance costs.
Sutliff Bridge Authority Member Sarah Brannaman asked the Board to take into consideration the work that has already been done by the engineering firm in West Des Moines. She said the pin test passed with flying colors.
Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Public Assistance Coordinator Rick Biondi said his department manages the Federal grant program for FEMA. He said under the public assistant grant program there are timetables for completing permanent work and this is considered permanent work. Biodini said the timetable is 18 months. Lyness said the Board could request an extension. Biodini said that is correct, but he just wanted to clarify that that there is a timetable. Henricksen said extensions are available in six month increments. Meyers asked if that is from the time repairs start or from the time of damage. Biodini said the timetable begins with the date of the Presidential Disaster Declaration. R. Sullivan said they knew that the Sutliff Bridge Authority members were moving forward, and then they learned suddenly that the County has to submit the application. He said that changes everything, because the County hadn't planned on that.
Biodini said he is certain they will be asking for extensions and extensions will be granted. Lyness asked what the date of declaration is. Biodini said May 25, 2008. Severino said they haven't gotten into this yet, because they haven't needed to talk about extensions yet. R. Sullivan said that is information that Lyness will need to have. Neuzil said it would be helpful for the Board to be apprised of the basic designs people are considering.
Stutsman said she wants to know what the County is getting into if they take back the bridge. She said she will have to evaluate if this is really in the County's best interest. Henricksen said the $500,000 number is not realistic, that Severino was just using it as an example. He said the actual number could be $1.5 million or it could be $2 million, and if it's not an improved project, it will be the actual dollars. If they do an improved project they will make every effort to capture what the actual cost will be and they will cap it at that and the County can build whatever it wants. Stutsman said they won’t have that information before they make the decision. Henricksen said that it would be impossible to gather that information before the Board makes it's decision.
R. Sullivan said the advantage they have is that they do know what they were able to get on the private insurance market to cover the liability, and they know what the average cost of maintenance has been for 25 years. Stutsman said that is what they need to hear from insurance. R. Sullivan said he thinks they should be able to get that information pretty soon. Harney said he thinks they will need an actual engineering drawing. Severino said yes, FEMA will pay for the engineering, but they don’t want to incur any more costs at this point until a decision is made.
Sutliff Bridge Authority Representative Randy Howell said, just so he is clear, he understands that they are saying FEMA will pay for the engineering costs incurred to this point, and then beyond, if the County should decide to go forward with that. Severino said, if the County decides to go forward, those costs would be transferred from the Authority to the County and it would be claimed through the County as part of the total project. She said that at this point the Board has to decide whether they want to assume that responsibility before they move forward and talk about projecting costs. Severino said that obviously costs weigh into their decision of whether they want to assume responsibility, but at this point FEMA will pay for the cost of the total project. Neuzil said that over the next few weeks, any information people can provide to the Board would be very helpful.
Henricksen asked the Board if there is an available conference room where FEMA can talk to the Bridge Authority members. He said they obviously have questions for them. Neuzil said they can use the lower level conference room. Henricksen thanked the Board for this opportunity. Severino said she will be present to answer questions.
County Treasurer Tom Kriz said he met with Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan, Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne, Iowa City Planning and Community Development Director Jeff Davidson, Iowa City Manager Michael Lombardo, and Joint Emergency Communications Center Attorney David Kutcher. Kriz said they looked at various ways to fund this initial shortfall until funding is available in April, 2009. He said it became very clear that either the City of Iowa City or Johnson County would borrow money on a short-term basis. Kriz said it made the most sense for the County to look for a local short-term loan for a down payment for the equipment and some other expenses. Kriz said he spoke with Bond Counsel Bob Josten, who said he can easily prepare a resolution to borrow the money locally. Kriz said the loan would be for $2.5 million to be repaid immediately once the $15.1 million total loan is placed nationally in April, 2009. Kriz said that is how they will proceed. They have made some calls and are getting bids from local lenders. He said local lenders are anxious to help bridge the gap.
Harney asked what the possibility is of the bonds not selling again. Kriz said that with the bond rating, and with the County going into the national market appealing to investors from all over the country, there will be bidders. He said many investors specialize in non-bank qualified type loans. Kriz said the timing was just horrendous with the initial bond offering and they were expecting this with the financial markets in turmoil. He said the markets have settled down a bit and the good news is the County will pay interest on only $2.5 million instead of the full $15.1 million for two months.
He said they will actually save some money. There will be a bigger pool of people and now there are more people interested in investing. Kriz said many lenders just stopped lending temporarily, and now as the lenders get back into the game, it makes it more advantageous for the County. He said they very well may have local lenders bid on this with an April date. Local lenders may not be the low bidder, but where they weren't willing to bid in January 2009, now they have enough time to consider this. Kriz said the County will be in a much better position with the bond rating.
R. Sullivan asked if the associated costs with this are going to be billed back to the Joint Communication Center levy. Kriz said associated costs will be billed to the JECC, which would include financial advisor Springstead, Inc. He said there will be some costs to the County to obtain their bond rating, which is something the County needed to do regardless of this bond issue.
Meyers asked if Kriz thinks they will get bond rated by April 2009. Kriz said he thinks they should have a bond rating applied by March 2009, with solicitations going out in early March 2009, and funding by April 1, 2009. He said they have worked hard at putting data together. He said Deputy Auditor's Dana Aschenbrenner, Chris Edwards, and Mark Kistler have worked along with Kriz to gather the real estate figures and tons of data necessary for the rating application. Kriz said they have been working with the County's audit firm, Eide Bailly, and have had a fast-paced week gathering all the data. He said they have about 60% of the financial data assembled already and thinks they will soon have the data ready to send to Moody's. Kriz said he will keep the Board updated when they get a resolution from Bond Counsel Josten.
Geographic Information System (GIS) Coordinator Rick Havel said the Iowa Department of Transportation is creating a GIS project portal for environmental planning activities that will initially occur along Interstates 80, 380, 680, and 35 in Iowa. He said the Iowa DOT will incorporate GIS data developed by Iowa DOT and several counties into a data repository, accessible via the portal. Havel said the portal will allow decisions made during environmental planning to be based on the most accurate and up-to-date geographic information. Corridor planning decisions can give full consideration to County specific needs such as zoning, land use, environmental, and historic preservation. Havel said this agreement is a sharing agreement, where GIS will give the DOT their information, and they will in turn allow Johnson County to use information they create and support through this portal. He said County GIS currently utilizes the Iowa GIS data repository system to distribute their information. It is free and available to the public.
Havel said the DOT will leverage that current system and extract data from that utility, so there won’t be any additional work on Havel's part in getting the information out to them. He said the DOT just wanted to have a formalized agreement to safeguard both of them during the portal creation. Havel said there won’t be any cost associated with this. He said this agreement takes cooperation and the willingness to openly share data, and that is the kind of atmosphere he wants to foster throughout other counties in Iowa. Havel said Johnson County was one of the first counties to get their information to the GIS data repository in an open and free environment and he sees other counties following suit. He said it is his recommendation that they enter in this agreement with the Iowa DOT.
Harney said they are specifically mentioning the interstates in the County and asked if the information is just for that or county-wide. Havel said the data they provide is county-wide. He said they wouldn’t filter out the data for the DOT, but most of the information and the projects that they are interested in are within a certain distance from the interstates.
Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan said the Board took action on this earlier in the year. He said annually the State provides a $10,000 grant to the County and the County matches it with $30,000 from the Block Grant budget. M. Sullivan said it is specifically for education, prevention, and referral to post-treatment services. The County contracts with Mid Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse (MECCA) for those services. M. Sullivan said the State reduced the grant allocation to $9,715, and he would imagine if that amount is going to remain the same, it will be reflected in their new RFP. M. Sullivan said this doesn’t change the County's $30,000 Block Grant contribution, but instead of receiving $10,000 the County will receive $9,715. He said the agreement has been amended and prepared for the Board's consideration and signature on February 5, 2009. Stutsman asked if MECCA is willing to assume the $285 cut or will they ask the County to reimburse for that. M. Sullivan said MECCA will absorb it into their budget.
M. Sullivan said a joint Criminal Justice Center Committee meeting is scheduled on February 3, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. and the new CJCC Coordinator wants to meet with the Committee itself. M. Sullivan said a budget work session is scheduled on February 6, 2009, at 9 a.m. R. Sullivan asked to confirm the County Conference Board meeting on February 5, 2009 at 3 p.m. M. Sullivan said he doesn’t have that scheduled. Neuzil said it will be helpful to have the County Assessor at that meeting. Stutsman said she will not be able to attend the meeting, if it is on February 5, 2009.
M. Sullivan said the information is on the County website at www.johnson-county.com. He said now there is a year-round County cleanup program. M. Sullivan said he will send a press release. He said it will include the process residents will need to go through when they go to the landfill and it will emphasize it is just for unincorporated Johnson County. This does not include the cities or the small towns in the county. He said a database has been prepared between the City of Iowa City and County Information Technology Services. M. Sullivan said users will provide their name and address on their landfill ticket. Vehicles will be weighed going in and on their way out, after garbage has been deposited. The database will be accessed on-site and the County will be billed for the landfill services. M. Sullivan said each household is allowed 2,000 pounds of waste annually. He said there is a minimum weight of 150 pounds per trip to the landfill. The information about the landfill is in the press release and will be on the website. M. Sullivan said this County cleanup reimbursement is supported entirely through the County Rural Tax Fund and the taxpayers know that. He said there are specific things that aren’t accepted, such as tires and hazardous waste. The landfill does take that, but it has to be done through a special contact with the landfill, and that isn’t covered under the County Cleanup program. M. Sullivan said in FY07 they spent $22,317 on the program and in FY08 they spent $12,500 on the program. He said he isn’t sure why it went down but may be related to the program being annual, which has helped lower the cost of it, because people are bringing refuse in throughout the year rather than one time. Harney said the County does not pay for disposal of yard waste, appliances, or electronics.
Meyers said he attended the reception for the MECCA Board of Directors. Meyers said the new Director for MECCA is Steven Estes who will be replacing Art Schutt in March 2009. He met with Facilities Director Dave Kempf and a representative from the City of Iowa City to review the properties across from the Jail. He attended the meeting for the Iowa City Assessor Dennis Baldridge on January 28, 2009. Meyers said the next meeting for the Iowa City Assessor is scheduled for February 23, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.
Harney said he attended the East Central Iowa Budget Committee meeting in Cedar Rapids. Harney said National Guard Colonel Vince Reefer turned over the keys, quit claim deed, and abstract for the National Guard Armory Building. He said that has been forwarded to the County Attorney’s Office for review and final paperwork for the transfer of that property to the County. Harney attended the annual Iowa State Association of Counties meeting in Des Moines.
Neuzil said a major sewer line broke in the Jail on January 28, 2009. He commended Facilities Manager Dave Kempf, who put up with a lot to resolve the horrible problem very quickly. Neuzil also thanked the Sheriff's Office staff for dealing with the situation very well. Meyers asked where the pipe broke. County Attorney Janet Lyness said it broke on the second floor but seeped down to the first floor records department. Staff worked very, very hard yesterday to retrieve the records, and some of the computers were wrecked. Neuzil said his next Listening Post is scheduled on February 5, 2009, at Bruegger’s Bagels on Riverside Drive at 7:00 a.m... Neuzil said R. Sullivan and he will be representing the Board this coming week during the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce and Cedar Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce Corridor trip to Washington, D.C.
Harney said an ongoing saga with the Jail deterioration has been the pipes, which have been deteriorating for a long time. The County Jail will continue to face these problems.
Adjourned at 10:17 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on July 30, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.