MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VJ Engineering: Sutliff Bridge Inspection and Feasibility Study........................................... 1
County Engineer Greg Parker: Condition of Osage Road and Petition in Support of Limiting Use of Lacina Drive....................................................................................................................................... 6
Johnson County Council of Governments Assistant Transportation Planner Kris Ackerson: Proposed Resolution Regarding Metro Bicycle Master Plan........................................................................... 10
Johnson County Council of Governments Assistant Transportation Planner Brad Neumann: Letter of Support for the Iowa Department of Transportation’s Grant Application for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service Funding Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 10
East Central Iowa Council of Governments GIS Specialist/Community Development Planner Hilary Copeland: Hazard Mitigation Plan – Available for Public Comment for 30 Days.......................... 11
East Central Iowa Council of Governments GIS Specialist/Community Development Planner Hilary Copeland: Approval of an Administrative Plan for the HMGP/FEMA Buyouts............................. 11
East Central Iowa Council of Governments GIS Specialist/Community Development Planner Hilary Copeland: Amend the Existing Contract for HMGP/FEMA Buyout Administration to Include Some Additional Federal Contract Clause Requirements...................................................................................... 12
East Central Iowa Council of Governments GIS Specialist/Community Development Planner Hilary Copeland: Approval of a Contract for HMGP/FEMA Buyout Administration for FEMA PA Demolition 12
East Central Iowa Council of Governments GIS Specialist/Community Development Planner Hilary Copeland: Process for HMGP/FEMA Buyout Financing................................................................ 12
Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne: Resolution 09-24-09-T1 Transferring from the General Basic Fund to the Conservation Trust Fund.............................................................................................. 13
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: Appointments to the Johnson County Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program.................................................................................................. 14
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Andy Johnson.......................................... 14
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors......................................................... 14
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: Collective Bargaining Strategy for 2010-2011: (Executive Session)..................................................................................................................................... 15
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 9:11 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan; absent: Larry Meyers.
VJ Engineering Professional Engineer Steve Jacobsen showed a picture of the Sutliff Bridge in its current condition with the far truss span missing. He said the bridge is a little over 800 feet long, and there are three very long bridge spans that are 214 foot 6 inches long. There are also some approach spans and a number of them are now missing. The truss over the main channel was swept off in the flood of 2008. He said the diagonals on the bridge are very slender because it is a Pratt truss where the diagonals are in tension. There are several different types of trusses around the County, including the Howe truss where the diagonals are in compression, the Warren truss which involves tension and compression, and the Parker truss which has top cord inclination. He said there are no bolts or welding on the bridge because they didn’t exist in the era during which the bridge was built. There are a lot of rivets, and there are teardrop eyebars.
Jacobsen said there was a loss of some approach spans due to the flood last year. There is also some scour around some of the river piers. He said the piers are on pilings so it won’t cause an imminent failure, but the space around the piers needs to be filled up. It is a common repair, and VJ Engineering did the repair to a number of bridges after the flood last year and after the flood in 1993. There is some damage to some of the bearing areas. When the main span was taken off the piers, it took with it some of the top stone, bearing areas. The piers are generally in pretty good condition, however. Jacobsen said there was damage to the east end of the middle span. The floor beam and some stringers on the last panel point were damaged and need to be repaired. The main truss span was also taken off by the flood and has been removed from the river. Jacobsen said to repair the bridge they need to replace the approach spans. The best and most economical way to do that is to use short, timber spans. Fill needs to be placed around the piers with rip rap that is large enough to not be swept away by the next flood. They also need to repair the damaged stone bearing areas, repair the end of the middle truss span, and replace the lost span.
Jacobsen said they were asked to look at several different alternatives for replacement of that span. Prestressed beams are probably the most economical bridge and are used on most bridges on interstates. They would not work well for this bridge because they are very heavy, which wouldn’t allow them to span the entire 215 feet. He said this option would require an additional pier in the end span, which would require getting permits from the Corps of Engineers and the DNR. Jacobsen said it would also become a maintenance problem in the future when stuff catches on the pier. The existing pier would not take that extra weight and another pier would probably need to be built next to it.
Jacobsen said they could span the full length with a steel girder, although it would require a deep girder. Again, another pier would need to be built next to the existing pier because of the heavy load from the steel girder. Because prestressed beams and the steel girder are deep members, they cannot be put underneath the deck because they would be down in the high waters. They would have to be up and the deck would go between them. They are solid so people shorter than 5 foot 5 inches wouldn’t be able to see the river from that span. Jacobsen said the pre-engineered truss is commonly used in parks and could be used to span the whole length of the bridge. They are fairly heavy and have pretty big members that are generally steel tubes. He said the view would be impeded, and he doesn’t think it fits in with the existing bridge.
Jacobsen said replace in kind would involve replicating the basic geometry of the existing spans, but they would use more modern connection techniques. There are also a few types of cable bridges he thinks would look nice in this situation. Jacobsen said he wants to clarify the pier loading concern. The existing pier had a load from each truss. Now there is just one, and there is unbalanced loading. Jacobsen said the cost of the work needed due to damage by the flood includes the main span, rip rap, and the approach spans. There is also some non-flood related work that needs to be done with the existing spans to get the bridge up to code.
Jacobsen said there has been a lot of interest in the replace in kind. The basic geometry would be the same. The diagonals would still be tension members and could be slender, but they would need to be a little larger. He said they can use higher strength steel so they wouldn’t have to double the member sizes. The connections would be different, and the most common type used for trusses like this are Gusset Plates, welded connection, and bolts. Jacobsen said they can make the connections look like the original bridge if they want, but they are just trying to replicate the bridge in general form.
Jacobsen said the cable spans are for a suspension bridge that would have a tower on the east bank and reach out to the pier. They can make this work so it puts just enough load on the existing pier by adjusting the cabling of the bridge. A cable stayed bridge is more modern with a set of cables that come down from a tower. There is one on Highway 34 in Burlington. Jacobsen said the nice thing about these is that they are all tension members like the existing trusses so they are similar is size but made from a different material. The biggest difference between the two is the tower height. For a cable stayed bridge, it would have to be about 50 feet tall for this span, and a suspension bridge would be about half that. They would give a different look visually but would work structurally.
Jacobsen said to put it back as a bridge to meet modern codes, there is some work that needs to be done on the existing bridge. Right now the standard for sidewalk loading is 85 pounds per square foot. The original bridge was designed for dead load and a moving load of 1,000 pounds. The modern sidewalk loading far exceeds the design loading for this bridge and the capacity. He said they did an analysis with the full loading and for making it only 10 feet down the middle of the bridge rather than the full 16 feet, and they found many of the members that needed to be reinforced started dropping out. It would not be too hard. Jacobsen said they would need a railing on each side of the 10 feet, and there would most likely be no decking outside of that. Then it could be restored as a bridge, it could be crossed, and it would meet modern loading standards. He said it would be necessary to have a hand rail in a design that fits the bridge, and some of the decking needs to be replaced. There are some that are rotted, and most boards need to be attached because they are loose.
Harney asked if the exposed rock is sitting on wood and if it is not necessarily supportive. Jacobsen said they are pretty sure the far pier is on rock, and the other piers are timber piles driven down to rock. On top of the timber piles is a timber grillage and the stone was placed on top of that. Through his experience, he has found that timber is fine as long as it stays wet. They are still used today by the DOT because they are very economical. VJ Engineering Engineering Intern Tim McDermott said when they are scoured out as the two center river piers are, they are basically on stilts versus bearing on the rock with the timber piles and the river bottom. Jacobsen said the bearing really is the piles, and they won’t move because they are on rock. Putting soil and rip rap around them would provide lateral support for those piles so they don’t break or buckle. Harney said $350,000 was mentioned as a base price for repairing the bridge, but he is concerned about items that might come up and add to the cost. Harney asked if they would need something more than a hand rail to make it safe for pedestrians. Jacobsen said they are referring to a handrail that would have a maximum opening of four inches, which is uniform building code standard. The most common way to do that would be to use vertical slats, and that is what has been included in the cost.
Harney asked if they would narrow the existing portion of the bridge. Jacobsen said he was suggesting the two existing spans would have a 10 foot walk way. The new span could be 10 feet or the whole width. Neuzil said it seems from the report that the replace in kind, suspension, and cable stay options would be preferable because an additional pier would not be necessary. He said both FEMA and the State would like the Board of Supervisors to choose the option and then submit it to FEMA and the State. At one point the Board felt it was the other way around. That is a decision they will have to make. Neuzil said if they want funding for this as a pedestrian bridge it has to function as a pedestrian bridge. Although FEMA and the State will help pay for the damage incurred by the flood, the County would be responsible for the $335,000 cost of bringing the bridge up to code. Neuzil said an option is to obtain a Memorandum of Agreement with the State and FEMA allowing the County to do the project in upcoming years. The County would then be eligible to use dollars from historic grants, the Sutliff Bridge Authority, and other fundraising mechanisms.
Neuzil said it sounds like FEMA and the State want a decision soon. They first have to determine if they want to move forward and then come up with a plan to make the bridge functional over a period of years. He said FEMA and the State have secured an earmark of approximately $1.4 million dollars; however, that is not a cap. They can request a project larger in size as long as the damage was incurred from the flood. He said they would have to comply with certain regulations and ensure the replace in kind is eligible to be done because the bridge is on the National Historic Registry. Neuzil said the Board now needs to obtain input from the community to help them determine whether or not to move forward with the project and which option to take if they do. The community should understand that there would be an obligation for the County to make the bridge functional at some point. The bridge could be completed with the pier; however, the remaining two sections would not be open to the public until the funds were obtained to make the bridge functional. Harney asked Jacobsen how accurate he feels the estimates are. Jacobsen said they base the estimates on recent DOT unit prices. If they wait a period of time to complete the project, it may have to be indexed to follow what is going on in construction. Stutsman asked what ongoing maintenance of the bridge would require. Jacobsen said the timber deck will be the biggest thing. Stutsman asked if repainting would an issue. Jacobsen said it would be an issue because there is lead paint on there, although repainting isn’t currently necessary to get the bridge up to code.
Sullivan asked about specifics of work required to bring the two spans up to code for things not damaged by the flood. Jacobsen said the biggest item involves repairing or beefing up the members. They anticipate leaving the existing ones there and increasing the size of the ones that are there by adding to them. The difficulty involves getting the connection around the pin. They would probably use a modern technique to get that connection. Jacobsen said the handrail would have to be replaced, and it is a variable cost depending on what material is used. He said the decking is not that expensive, and some of the current decking could probably be cut and reused. Harney asked if the $335,000 covers the walkways and approaches on both ends. Jacobsen said $335,000 just addresses the work on the two existing spans. The approaches and main span are gone and need to be replaced brand new. Harney asked if the cost of that is included in the $1.5 million. Jacobsen said yes.
Harney asked how long it would take to do complete the project. Jacobsen said the repairs on the existing bridge would probably take several months and replacing the spans would most likely take a full construction season. Neuzil said once the Board has made a policy decision on this, they would submit it to FEMA. FEMA would then likely ask the County to submit an agreement that would go beyond the November deadline so they would need to request an extension. He thinks FEMA wants some direction in the next two to three weeks. Neuzil asked VJ Engineering representatives how the Board should proceed with them once they have made a decision. Jacobsen said they have included some engineering costs with the estimates, and the County has already had a selection process so it would be a matter of amending their agreement for the design.
Neuzil asked VJ Engineering if the Board could get some visuals of what the different options would look like. He thinks it would be helpful for their decision making and for the community to view the different options. Jacobsen said yes. Neuzil asked if VJ Engineering is familiar with the historical regulations they are going to have to work within. Jacobsen said yes, they have done this before. Stutsman asked if that is included in the estimates. Jacobsen said yes. Harney asked County Engineer Greg Parker if he has any questions. Parker said he thinks VJ Engineering did an excellent job with the feasibility study and the options they are presenting to the Board. He is very impressed with what they have come up with. Neuzil asked if the cost of the study was covered by FEMA. Parker said yes, that is his understanding.
Neuzil asked the Board members how they would like to visit with the community regarding the ideas. Harney said he would prefer to have it closer to the time they are going to make a decision. Neuzil asked if they wanted to have the discussion during another Informal Meeting, during a night meeting, or during a work session or public hearing. Neuzil said it would be helpful if VJ Engineering would be present to help explain the study. Stutsman asked if Neuzil wants to obtain public input on which design they should do. Neuzil said he not only wants to discuss the designs, but also to find out if people want the County to commit to spend $335,000 to repair the bridge. They would hopefully get some of that money back from other funding sources, however. The removal of the remainder of the existing bridge is still an option.
Sullivan said it makes sense to get some feedback and thinks it is a question of format for doing so. He asked people to report or if the Board should narrow down the options and then ask for input. Harney thinks they need input on whether to rebuild to remove the bridge. Neuzil asked when VJ Engineering could attend another meeting. Sullivan thinks they need to pick a date a couple of weeks away so the public will know about it in advance. Jacobsen said VJ Engineering will need a little time to prepare visuals. They can assist with planning the format of the meeting because they have some options that have been very successful. Executive Assistant Andy Johnson asked the Board if they want him to work on arranging a date. Neuzil asked if VJ Engineering would be available for an evening meeting so as many people as possible can attend. Jacobsen said that will work for them. Neuzil said they will plan something in the next few weeks.
Stutsman asked if they want to use the format they use when they are obtaining input for a road project. It involves having the options laid out for people to walk around and look at. Jacobsen said they have found that to work well. The Board Members can answer individual questions and then come together as a group. Stutsman said she would prefer that format. Neuzil agreed and said they will plan to do that. They will have Johnson work with VJ Engineering to schedule a date and get the word out to everyone in the County. Neuzil asked if the Feasibility Study will be available online. Johnson said he can put it online when he gets an electronic copy. Jacobsen said they will provide an electronic version.
Parker said Lacina Drive is a private subdivision road that was created several years ago. One of the requirements for the subdivision was that they had to have two accesses at different points for the subdivision. It is a parallel route to Osage, which is a level B road. Parker said residents are seeing traffic through Lacina Drive, which is probably through traffic and not people who live in that subdivision. It sounds as though some agricultural equipment is being driven on this road. He said the residents requested an option to gate the community. He thinks they had a discussion with Planning and Zoning about gating the accesses, which brings the Iowa City Fire Department into the equation. The subdivision is serviced by them, and it may not be only a single entity that is impacted by that request.
Parker said the south section of Osage Road was one of the roadways the Board wanted Secondary Roads to consider for a potential upgrade from a level B to a level A, as long as all of the property owners abutting the roadway would donate the needed right-of-way. However, those expenditures were put on hold to cover budget overages related to the flood and rough winters. He said they would still be on the Board’s agenda if they are interested in looking at that, but currently it is a funding issue for Secondary Roads. Harney said when this came through originally, an option was to use Osage Road for the main entrance, but the builders chose not to. Now a problem has developed and become the County’s responsibility; however, Harney doesn’t mind if they close it off.
Neuzil asked if the residents have the right to limit the use of Lacina Drive with the agreement they have. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore said Lacina Drive is a private road; however, the ordinances during the planning process required two access points because of the number of lots and the length of the road. Taking them to the west side on Naples Avenue also required a dust alleviation agreement with the then-subdivider and the homeowners association. He believes they can request to limit access as a private road. However, gating is not something that follows with Planning and Zoning ordinances because they are trying to create through roads for better traffic flow rather than restricting traffic flow.
Stutsman said there are no County dollars going to this road. She said they do want through roads, but these residents have a lot of investment in a road that is getting torn up and was never intended to be a through road for the general public. Neuzil said the deal for this development was if they wanted the development they had to have access by two ways. He asked if limiting one of those accesses now is a way to get around the ordinance. Moore said that it does get around the ordinance. The ordinance was adopted with input from the fire departments in Johnson County regarding safety issues. If one access point is damaged or blocked off, there is a secondary access for emergency vehicles.
Sullivan asked Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell if there are any legal issues involved. Chappell said since it is a private road, they can keep people off the road. From the letters he saw, it seems they are having problems with enforcement and people are ignoring the sign indicating it’s a private road. Although they can restrict use of their road, but gating is a different issue. He doesn’t know of any gated subdivisions in Johnson County, and he doesn’t know of anything in the ordinance that addresses them. Blocking off the western end of the road would make it a single entrance subdivision. Chappell said there can be a subdivision with that long of a road with only one entrance, but it requires a waiver of the rule from the Board. The Board wasn’t willing to do that at the time or else they wouldn’t have required two entrances.
Chappell said he would want to look at the Code to determine the best way to do it if they do want to do it. He is not sure if it would require a vote by the Board or a re-subdivision of the area where the only difference between the two plats is the number of entrances. The Code allows for a level C road, which is a gated County road, but this is a private road. There aren’t any level C roads in the County. Neuzil asked if they have any agreements that allow fire gates that a fire truck could push through. Harney said they had a discussion about a break away gate for this road. Chappell said the only gates he has seen are those put up by a landowner on a level B portion to keep people off or a gate on a closed portion of a road. Stutsman said she feels some responsibility for upgrading Osage Road because of all the developments in that area. Osage Road is the through road between two gravel roads. She said the County may need to take over responsibility for this road if it is used so much by the public.
Moore said Planning and Zoning agrees that there should be accesses for subdivisions of this size. They believe the safety issues are whole priorities, and they would prefer to fix Osage Road so there is a public road available rather than gate the subdivision. Moore said they have talked to residents, and they are having trouble with tractors coming through and damaging their chip seal road. If the County could improve that stretch of Osage Road in the near future, it would take stress off of the private road. Neuzil asked if staff was able to talk to all of the landowners about Osage Road. Parker said they had a preliminary meeting with residents to talk about what they were planning. There was a big showing, but there were many unknowns with the budget. Neuzil said they took all the funding they were saving for that and gave it to Secondary Roads to deal with additional road costs. They also cut taxes on the rural side by not spending the additional dollars. Neuzil said this is at the top of the list for level B upgrades since Sioux Avenue was taken out.
Moore said the eastern portion of Osage Road is gravel. Stutsman said she has heard from farmers in the area who want Osage Road upgraded to all gravel for years. It is not just the people from this subdivision who want that. She thinks it is a road that is heavily traveled by the farm community. Moore said this may not be only issue of this kind that comes to the Board because he just received a call about gating off an existing subdivision north of North Liberty. Stutsman asked if it involves the same circumstances. Moore said no. They have a single access and want to put up a gate. Parker said he met with the individual this morning, and it would be for about 11 lots. Sullivan said they get mixed messages from people regarding roads because they don’t want to raise taxes but do want road upgrades. They can’t do both, and he doesn’t know how to address it. Neuzil said they might have to look at adding level B roads to the County’s Five Year Road Plan to make the road upgrade a priority.
Parker said to keep costs down for Osage Road, they were going to have the Engineering Department do the surveying and the Maintenance Department do the construction. He thinks it is less than a mile stretch. Neuzil asked if they will need all the landowners to give the County the right-of-way needed. Parker said that was the direction the Board gave him when they first discussed this road. Harney said the money they were saving for Osage Road was needed to help Secondary Roads with major priorities. He said they can put money back into that. Sullivan said they chose not to do that during the last budget. For two years they put in $200,000, but they chose last year not to do that. Stutsman said they continued the trails money. Parker said it was reduced, but they did put dollars into that fund source.
Neuzil said he thinks residents are asking if the Board is willing to have Planning and Zoning staff review that plat and those requirements. He asked if they have the ability to go back and say one of those accesses can be blocked. Moore said Chappell mentioned some options available. If they want to change anything such as gating one end of that road, he thinks Planning and Zoning staff would say they should attempt to re-subdivide the property with a new plat. They would then request not to have two access points and go back through the process; however, it could be quite expensive. Chappell said that is the one way he knows they could do it, but he does want to review the code. Moore said the Board would have to give them a waiver from the two access points. Sullivan thinks they should look at the possibility of upgrading Osage Road. Harney said if they are going to upgrade that road, there is room to close one end and bring it out onto Osage Road rather than making an exception to not have two entrances.
Moore said there might be an outlot to the south, but they could create a cul-du-sac. Re-subdividing could involve having long cul-de-sacs from two different directions; however, it would put half of the subdivision onto a gravel road, which would require a dust alleviation agreement. There are some options available, but the Board should consider that they may be setting a precedent for future subdivisions if they decide to grant relief. Moore said that would defeat the purpose of their safety measures. Sullivan said it is poor planning to have something that size with only one entrance, and that is why they required two. He thinks upgrading Osage Road is the issue and probably needs to happen.
Neuzil asked if there is an interest in having Planning and Zoning and the County Attorney’s Office look at potential options for gating versus having to re-subdivide. He also asked if they want Secondary Roads to explore the potential to upgrade Osage Road. Stutsman would prefer to look at upgrading Osage Road. Sullivan agreed. Parker said of the three road projects, this is the second one; however, the fund source that would have been used to upgrade the road is gone. Secondary Roads can change their priorities, but if they include a project they will have to shift something out. Neuzil said an alternative would be to raise taxes to pay for it. This is the time to discuss the project since they are going into the budget process.
Neuzil said the people who submitted the petition are waiting to find out if this will be added to the budget, and that wouldn’t officially happen for several months. Stutsman said the residents could talk to Moore about the re-platting process, and they might prefer to do that. Parker asked the Board if they would still require the right-of-way to be donated in order to upgrade Osage. Neuzil said that is what the direction had been in the past, and he doesn’t think anything has changed. Parker said he will want to explain that to the residents when he meets with them. Stutsman would like the information from the landowners. Harney thinks Planning and Zoning and Parker should meet with the homeowners, try to work something out, and make a recommendation to the Board. Neuzil said the Board would like more information before making any decisions.
Recessed 10:24 a.m.; reconvened 10:33 a.m.
Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Assistant Transportation Planner Kris Ackerson said JCCOG staff put together a Metro Wide Bicycle Master Plan about a year ago. They were asked to consider more on-street routes, educational opportunities, and enhanced enforcement. He said the steering committee was the JCCOG Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee. They met with engineers, planners, and law enforcement official from each entity to obtain input. Ackerson said there were two workshops that were open to the pubic, and there was an online survey. Since then, they put together a draft, the JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee gave it their approval, and the City of Iowa City adopted it. Ackerson said they are now asking that the other cities and Johnson County create resolutions to adopt the plan. After the entities have done so, the JCCOG Board will also adopt the plan.
Neuzil said he is happy that Johnson County is mentioned more in this plan than it has been in the past. Not only is their vision as a County included, but the County is also getting some credit for some of the investment they are making in trails and in adding paved shoulders to routes. Ackerson said they have gotten a lot of positive feedback about the paved shoulders. Harney agreed and said there is a misconception that riders are required to use the trails. Ackerson said they tried to focus on the distinction between the different types of people using the trail and the different levels of cyclists in the plan. They want to raise awareness about the different facilities that are available. They want to provide both trails and on-street routes.
Neuzil said he would be abstaining from any further discussion. JCCOG Assistant Transportation Planner Brad Neumann said JCCOG recently heard from the Iowa Department of Transportation asking for letters of support for an application through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Intercity Passenger Rail Service Funding. It is an application in conjunction with the State of Illinois and would cover the environmental work that needs to be done on the track, track infrastructure, layover facilities, and station improvements between Chicago and Iowa City. JCCOG is seeking letters of support from the County and area committees. Neumann said they sent a letter to the Board for them to sign if they do support it.
Harney asked if there is any expectation of in-kind dollars from the County. Neumann said it will be primarily funded by the State of Iowa and the State of Illinois as well as the Federal Government. He said the only local funding would be for the station, and that is Iowa City’s responsibility, although Iowa City could ask for assistance from the County. The Board Members agreed to put the item on a future Formal Meeting agenda for approval.
East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) GIS Specialist/Community Development Planner Hilary Copeland said they have been working on a Hazard Mitigation Plan for Johnson County over the past year. They did have one, but the requirements were changed so it became out of compliance. She said the Hazard Mitigation Plan allows the County to qualify for certain grant programs under the Stafford Act. There is also a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, which is an annual competitive grant program. Copeland said the plan outlines numerous mitigation ideas, but not all of them are grant fundable. FEMA only focuses on the ones related directly to natural hazards. By adopting this plan, there is no commitment that they will ever pursue those mitigation ideas or direct any funds to those. It simply allows the County to have that option.
Copeland said the Board and Emergency Management have copies of the plans, and they are available online so the public can view them. Sullivan asked if the 30 day period can begin immediately or if they need Board action. Copeland said FEMA has previously said it is acceptable to start it as long it is on an agenda. They will need adoption by resolution in 30 days.
Copeland said this is regarding the 16 properties the County has been awarded buyout funds for through FEMA. The administrative plan outlines the process they will go through to acquire these properties, and the language is what was recommended by FEMA. Johnson County and their legal staff will coordinate to purchase the properties. She said they have started to identify any duplication of benefits that may have occurred. They will subsequently release the funds to acquire titles and update the abstracts. Copeland said when that is all complete, they will begin making purchase offers. The base price for the purchase offers is 110% of the assessed value. The administrative plan also outlines the guidelines for anyone who wishes to contest that purchase price. She said that would be done at a public hearing, and it would be at the Board’s discretion to proceed with a different purchase price. Copeland said it also addresses how they will demolish the properties. Harney asked if the assessed value is based on an individual appraisal. Copeland said it is the County Assessor’s value at the time of the flood plus 10%.
Copeland said the amendment for the existing contract for HMGP/FEMA Buyout Administration simply involves inclusion of some language from 44-CFR that they prefer is listed in the document. It is mainly for the County’s benefit for any kind of separation.
Copeland said when they initially applied for the grants, they were told there would be one overarching administrative contract. They have determined that a majority of properties on this application will be demolished through PA Funds, which involve the County’s 406 Program. Those will then need to be paid through FEMA, and they prefer that there is a separate administrative contract for that. She said it outlines that ECICOG will provide demolition monitoring, RFP development, project file development, and close-out of the demolition project. The contents of C and D are the equivalent of the administrative award amount through the HMGP buyout. Copeland said there are no additional fees, but FEMA prefers that there are two separate contracts.
Copeland said there are three options for HMGP/FEMA buyout financing. There is the possibility of advancing the funds to purchase the properties. Another possibility would involve reimbursement only. The third option would be a combination approach. She said a benefit of the first option is that they wouldn’t have to cash flow the project. Under a normal HMGP program, they would have 30 days to finish each aspect of the project. However, the matching CDBG would have to be expended within one week. She said ECICOG has some concerns with this option since the County is working with individual property owners. If someone backed out of the closing after the County had received CDBG funds, the County would need to be able to return the money in time. Therefore, Copeland is not certain that it is the best viable option. She said she did inquire as to what would happen if those funds weren’t expended in one week and has not yet heard back.
Copeland said the reimbursement-only approach would be somewhat limiting because they would have to cash flow the entire project. The entire project value is about $2.3 million, and they don’t anticipate purchasing all of the properties at once. It will probably be done in batches as they receive clear titles and reach agreements with property owners regarding purchase price. She said the highest property values are in the $200,000 range. Copeland said if they use the combination approach, the County would be advanced the HMGP funds only, which is 85% of the project cost. The County would cash flow the remaining 15%, which would be approximately $310,000 total. That amount would probably be broken down into smaller batches. Copeland said they wouldn’t have to put up very much of the cash reserve for the project, and they wouldn’t have the issue with the CDBG funds. The FEMA funding can be kept for 30 days so there should be enough time to reschedule a closing or return the funds if necessary.
Neuzil asked if most government entities choose the combination approach. Copeland said they either do that to separate the funds out after the fact or they will purchase one house at a time. She said it is easier to proceed in small groups, especially when they are looking at putting out a demo contract. They would have 90 days to clear the property, and it would be preferable to do the demos in batches. Stutsman asked County Treasurer Tom Kriz if there would be a problem with cash flowing the $310,000. Kriz said it could be problematic if it was done as a lump sum, but it is possible if the purchases are broken up. Copeland said they want to make sure that the County is comfortable with the amount that will be a reimbursement. Sullivan asked how long the FEMA reimbursement will take. Copeland said they try to have less than a 30-day turn around.
Neuzil asked if Johnson will work with Copeland for the funding. Johnson said he thinks that is okay as long as there is direction from the Board about what they want to do. Stutsman said she supports the third option. Neuzil agreed and said that is what they will plan to do. Harney asked if they have to adopt it formally. County Attorney Janet Lyness said she thinks the Board does that when they take action to buy the houses. Copeland said they will have to put the actual purchase offer for each house on an agenda, and the purchase offer for each house will need to be approved. They will be able to make decisions if financial changes occur. Stutsman asked if the property owners can back out at any time. Copeland said yes.
Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne said this is a normal transfer they do every year, and it is set up by Iowa code. Regular revenues earned by the Conservation Department are transferred to their trust fund. When they do the budget, they estimate the revenues that will be transferred over. He said they estimated $66,040, and the actual dollars are $100,422. They previously passed a resolution showing the amount of $66,040, and he needs to replace that one with the actual number. Stutsman said this is the money Conservation generates from normal operations. Claiborne said he will add it to a future Formal Meeting agenda for adoption.
Stutsman said the appointments to the Johnson County Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program are to fill vacancies on the Policy Board. Johnson said the only issue is that there are more applications than there are openings. He said he can talk to Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia, and they can put this on the agenda again for next week. Sullivan said he would like to know the number of males and females currently serving on the Policy Board before they make any selections. Neuzil said they want to do that because that mandate is coming, although they have already been looking at gender balance for years. Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia said she will look at the entire board, but she thinks it is heavily comprised of female members. Sullivan said they may need to start asking for gender on applications because of names that are used by both males and females. Correia said they will have to change the application form so that information can be added. She said she went through the list of policy board categories, and there are still some that have openings. In addition, there are people that have not been attending meetings regularly so they will be contacted during the next month to determine if they want to maintain their appointment to the board.
Johnson said there is a Joint Meeting with the Cedar County Board of Supervisors scheduled for September 21, 2009 in Tipton to address a road vacation issue. There is a Key Issues Meeting scheduled for September 23, 2009, and a Board Meeting scheduled for September 24, 2009.
Stutsman attended a Department of Human Services budget meeting for the coming year.
Neuzil said his next Listening Post is scheduled for September 18, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. at Iguana’s Grill in North Liberty, and the key issues this month involve the Justice Center and the potential use of the Press Citizen Building.
Recessed at 11:04 a.m.; reconvened at 11:19 a.m.
Motion by Sullivan, second by Stutsman, to enter Executive Session at 11:20 a.m. to discuss collective bargaining strategy for 2010 - 2011 under section 20.17(3), Code of Iowa: “negotiating sessions, strategy meetings of public employees shall be exempt from the provisions of chapter 21 (Official Meetings Open to the Public).” Roll call: aye: Neuzil, Sullivan, Harney, Stutsman, absent: Meyers.
Motion by Harney, second by Stutsman, to leave Executive Session at 12:31 p.m. Roll call: aye: Harney, Stutsman, Neuzil, Sullivan; absent: Meyers.
Adjourned at 12:31 p.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary