MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
OCTOBER 8, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Discussion with Representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Iowa Homeland Security, Iowa State Historical Society, VJ Engineering, Sutliff Bridge Authority and County Staff Regarding the Sutliff Bridge Project................................................................................................................. 1
Discussion from the Public................................................................................................. 11
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 9:02 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said VJ Engineering was asked to give a brief overview of the report they presented to the Board a couple of weeks ago. VJ Engineering Engineering Intern Tim McDermott said he would provide a general overview of the Sutliff Bridge configuration. It was built in 1898 and is a 3-span, Parker Truss superstructure. The east and west approach spans have timber joists with a timber deck. The foundation consists of limestone piers. The three river piers are founded on a timber grillage with 43 timber piles per pier. The east shore pier is founded on a rock ledge. Due to the flood of 2008, all of the approach spans were lifted off of their supports and deposited downstream. There was also significant scour left on the base of the river piers. The east span was lifted off its piers and the top of the piers were damaged. The east end of the middle span was damaged as the east span was lifted, and the east main truss span was lost. A cabin floating downstream impacted the structure and sheared the pedestals off the top of a pier, causing the west end of the east span to be pulled away and resulting in additional damage.
McDermott said that in addition to some non-flood related repairs, the following repairs need to occur to return the structure to a functioning bridge. The west and east approach spans need to be replaced. VJ Engineering considered several different options for doing so and decided it would be most cost effective to use shorter spans with timber joists. Scour protection needs to be added to the piers. Rip rap would provide lateral security for the piers that are scoured out. The bearing areas atop the river piers need to be repaired. The east end of the middle span needs to be repaired. The floor beam and approximately 8 dislocated steel stringers need to be replaced.
McDermott said the primarily area of concern is replacing the east span. Some of the different options considered include prestressed concrete beams, steal girder, pre-engineered truss, replace in kind, and a cable stay bridge. One option considered is the demolition option, which would involve removing the two existing spans, removing what is left of the remaining west approach span, and removal of the limestone river piers. The estimate of the cost is approximately $200,000. The prestressed concrete beams and steal girder options are probably the two most cost effective options. However, they would detract from the historical and aesthetic nature of the existing spans. They are heavy materials and a significant amount of reinforcement to the existing river piers would be required. In addition, the concrete beam option would require the addition of a pier between the east shore and east river piers.
McDermott said that the pre-engineered truss option would result in the height of the new span being about half of that of the existing spans. The individual members of the trusses are also significantly bulkier than those of the existing spans. Replace in kind would essentially involve replicating the geometry of the existing bridge spans. It would have the same height, panel width, and roadway width. The member sizes would be similar but slightly larger to accommodate the heavier loads that are now required by The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The biggest difference would involve the connections. There are a couple of benefits to using the cable stay option including the impact on loading on the existing structure. It can be designed to pull back a lot of the dead load from the replacement span so more of it is allocated to the east shore pier. That is beneficial because it has a higher bearing capacity due to sitting on a rock ledge. The loading on the east river pier is currently lopsided and should be balanced out. The member size and overall height of the tower would be similar to the existing Parker trusses.
McDermott said in addition to the flood-related repairs, there are some age-related repairs that would be necessary to bring the existing bridge spans up to code. The primary concern is replacing or reinforcing some of the critical, structural members of the trusses. In the feasibility report, they recommended that the deck be limited to 10 feet, as opposed to the existing 16 feet. If the existing 16 foot deck width is kept, approximated three quarters of the members would need some work. It is more cost effective to limit the decking geometry. After replacing or reinforcing the members, the bridge would be brought up to the 85 pounds per square foot pedestrian live load that is required by AASHTO. The handrails also need to be replaced to be brought up to code, and a substantial portion of the decking needs to be replaced and tied down to the structure to prevent the boards from popping up. The cost of these non-flood-related repairs is approximately $335,000, which includes design, construction, and management fees.
VJ Engineering President Jim Jacob said extra copies of the feasibility report are available. FEMA representative Steve Hopkins asked if the report is the same one available on the internet or if it has been revised. Jacob said it is the same report that was given to the County a couple of weeks ago. Neuzil invited representatives to take this opportunity to ask questions of VJ Engineering, although no official decisions will be made here today. The Board is still interested in obtaining public input on October 19, 2009. The Board would also like to get updates from each of the entities present.
FEMA Public Assistance Coordinator Steve Hopkins said FEMA was very comfortable with the report. There were a couple of issues in it, but FEMA Project Specialist Adam Moeller has addressed them with VJ Engineering and revised the worksheet to include their numbers rather than FEMA’s cost estimating numbers. Moeller said it increased the amount by $292,000. Hopkins said that is for replacement with the Parker span, which will make the bridge look historically and aesthetically the way it did before. Neuzil asked if the report has been filed yet. Hopkins said Moeller has a copy of it for the County’s signature today. Neuzil asked if it involves the replace in kind option. Hopkins said yes.
Sullivan said he is wondering if it would meet the approval of the State Historic Preservation Office. State Historic Preservation Office Architect Jack Porter said they would have no objections to the replace in kind option, based on the fact that there are ample drawings, photographs, analysis, and evidence regarding the missing approaches and trusses. Sullivan asked if it would affect the bridge’s status on the National Historic Registry. State Historic Preservation Office Archaeologist Doug Jones said it should not affect the bridge’s status because they are basically doing the repairs in kind and/or with modifications that are acceptable with the existing spans, and the replacement span would be similar. Stutsman asked if replace in kind would involve the use of eyebars or more modern construction shown in the presentation. Jacob said they would use Gusseted fixed connections as opposed to pin connections.
Stutsman said Hopkins mentioned an increase of $292,000, and she didn’t understand what that meant. Hopkins said the worksheet was originally written for approximately $1.4 million, based on a cost estimating format. Since the feasibility study was completed by VJ Engineering, FEMA has used the actual costs listed by VJ Engineering and increased the project worksheet. It went in for review, and when it becomes obligated, it will be the County’s. Hopkins said there are some issues involved, however. The County would become responsible for the non-flood damage repairs, which amounts to $335,000. Sullivan asked if the replace in kind option is the only option that is acceptable to the State Historic Preservation Office. Porter said they would want to study the cable stay option in greater detail, and they are willing to do that. The biggest issue is that it is so different from the existing, historic bridge. He thinks the engineers are right on target with their analysis of the other three options. Sullivan asked if it is safe to say that they are very comfortable with the replace in kind option, and they would need to take a closer look at any other option. Porter agreed. Jones said a kiosk could be located near the bridge to explain the changes to the bridge.
Stutsman asked to be educated about the historical designation of the bridge and the importance of maintaining the designation. Jones said there are incentives to maintaining the designation, including eligibility for specific grants available only to properties listed on the National Register through The State Historic Preservation Office. He assumes the bridge is also a source of local pride, and he would be interested to know if there is still a desire to maintain it on the National Register. He believes it was listed not only for local significance, but also for State significance. It is one of the few remaining bridges of that size and type in the state. The State Historic Preservation Office is going to fight to maintain that if at all possible. However, if there is a desire to remove it from the National Register, it can be arranged.
Harney asked how making changes to meet criteria for safety for pedestrians will affect the historic significance. State Historic Preservation Office Architectural Historian Jeremy Ammerman said it really wouldn’t. The addition of rub rails and hand rails, and changes from 16 feet to 10 feet are not considered a substantive change to the structure of the bridge. Jones said the Hale Bridge in Jones County is a good example of a transportation bridge that has been changed to a pedestrian bridge as part of a trail. It was de-listed at the time the bridge was moved, but it is now listed again on the National Register. He said a lot of current bridges are not going to be able to handle current traffic needs, and they are trying to encourage reuse of those older bridges for other purposes, such as trails.
Sullivan asked if the Board could contact the State Historic Preservation Office for additional information regarding grant opportunities because it could potentially affect the decision they make. Jones said Grants Manager Kristen Vander Molen could talk to them, and they can also obtain related information on their website at www.iowahistory.org. He said the County would probably be eligible for Historic Resource Development Program Grants and could be eligible for Historic Sites Preservation Grants, which are larger grants and involve a 50:50 cash match. Sullivan asked if there is anything approaching $335,000. Jones said he believes the Historic Sites Preservation Grant goes up to $100,000 maximum. Porter said there are also Enhancement Funds through the DOT. Stutsman said the County has historically used the Enhancement Funds for trail projects, and she is concerned that they would be competing with those. Jones said there are two levels of enhancement funds; there is the regional pot and the state pot. They could be applying for different levels of funding out of different pots for different projects. Stutsman said County Engineer Greg Parker has had plenty of experience applying for Enhancement Grants. Parker agreed.
Stutsman asked VJ Engineering about the possibility of moving Sutliff Bridge to another location to be used for a trail. McDermott said it is not a possibility because the spans are too long to be lifted. In addition, it would not be recommended due to the age of the bridge. The entire bridge would need to be disassembled and reassembled. Harney asked if additional costs would be picked up be FEMA or if it would be the responsibility of the County. Hopkins said this is a large project and will go on actual costs for the flood-damaged portion of the bridge.
Neuzil asked about the process regarding the form requesting additional funds that Moeller prepared for the County to sign. Hopkins said it will go through the same process that the first form went through. Iowa Homeland Security & Emergency Management Division (HSEMD) Grant Program Manager Dennis Harper said FEMA is going to write the project worksheet and enter it into the National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS). It will then go through a review process, which includes the State and consulting parties. Based on the discussion today, it should be obligated soon. It would be an additional amount of money so it wouldn’t have to go back to Washington D.C. The amendment should be approved fairly quickly and will be received as an electronically printed document from the State.
Sullivan said Johnson County has an earmark to use on this project if they choose. He asked if there are potential cash flow issues involved with the project. If the County decides to do the project, they would have to figure out how to pay the $335,000 and over what period of time to pay it. If there are grants available, they would want to apply that funding as well as any funding available from the Sutliff Bridge Authority. Sullivan asked how the whole financial picture works together in terms of paying people for their services. Harper said he can only address the part involving the cash flow involving FEMA’s Public Assistance Program. Once the contract documentation has been reviewed with the County and everyone is comfortable, they will have the ability to request and draw funds in advance of expenditures. The County can make those requests up to 90 days in advance of any anticipated expenditure that is funded by FEMA. At the end, they will officially close out the grant and the County will then be eligible to receive the 10% State share matching funds. That is also based on actual costs. Sullivan asked if there would be an issue in terms of cash flow if VJ Engineering has to do some of the non-flood-related repairs first. Harper said it probably wouldn’t directly affect the grant cash flow, and he could probably close out the project worksheet without necessarily having seen the other portion of the work completed. Sullivan asked if it is something the County could work out with the contractor doing the work. Harper said yes. It will be critical for the County to keep the two types of work separate, and he thinks they can do so.
Jones said they may be able to move ahead with a memorandum of agreement that would give the County additional time to obtain funds. That was done with the Hale Bridge move. The State Historic Preservation Office can be very flexible in allowing time to explore and obtain grants, and he thinks FEMA would be willing to that as well. Harper said the County would have up to four years to actually complete the project due to evidence that they have made adequate progress. Additional extensions are also possible. Harney said the problem with extending the project is that costs go up over time.
Stutsman asked how much money the Sutliff Bridge Authority has raised. Sutliff Bridge Authority Director Sara Brannaman said roughly $30,000 to $40,000. Stutsman said she is curious why they did not do fundraising this year. Brannaman said it was their thank you to the community for supporting them over the past 25 years. Stutsman asked if there is any limitation regarding County dollars versus private dollars being used towards the project. Hopkins asked if she is referring to money that would be used towards the $335,000 that will not be covered by FEMA. Stutsman asked if there is any requirement that the funds have to be matched by County tax dollars. Hopkins said no. Porter said for the State Historic Grants, they need to consider matches. Usually, federal dollars can't be used to match federal dollars, although there are some exceptions to that. The Sutliff Bridge funds would essentially be considered private funding and could be leveraged for the grants. Porter said he thinks they would need to look at the grant guidelines closely for the 10% State funds. Jones encouraged the Board to contact Vander Molen with any questions regarding their grants.
Neuzil said there are a lot of people either for or against the use of local dollars. Up to this point, the availability of State and Federal dollars has been the focus. Now there is a realization that maintaining the functionality of the bridge will involve a commitment by the County to come up with a significant amount of money to repair the bridge. It would be nice to get a handle on whether or not they would be successful in doing so, and he thinks they can get a feel for it over the next several weeks. Jones said a lot people came forward to support the move of the Hale Bridge, and the Board members may be surprised by the number of people who may want to come forward with resources. Sutliff Bridge Authority Director Randy Howell said people have approached them and said they would be interested in donating money if the County decides to go forward with the project. Neuzil said there will need to be a strong partnership between the County and the Sutliff Bridge Authority if they move forward with the project.
Neuzil said he would like Hopkins to explain the options on the sheet he handed out. Hopkins said Moeller put the information together yesterday. Hopkins said the funds are broken down by funding source for replacement of the missing span and the 2 approaches. FEMA would be providing 90% and the State would be providing 10% of the funds for the flood-related repairs. The available funding from FEMA is $1,569,843.46. The State would provide the other 10% of the funding for replacement of the missing span. Stutsman asked if those funds would be affected by the shortfall of the State budget. Harper said they have not been affected in the past, although he has heard discussions in the past regarding the availability of the funds being delayed. The State has been made aware of the match numbers state-wide for this disaster event, and there has been no indication that the State would hold any of those matching funds. Harney said he heard this morning that there will be an 8% cut across the board. Stutsman asked if these funds are in a separate pot that is protected. Harper said the funds come through the State Executive Council and are separate from that budgeting process and always have been. Stutsman said the State has used money from other funds in the past and these are unusual times. Neuzil said it is an issue that can be addressed at the upcoming Rebuild Iowa Meeting. Harper said if he hears anything regarding the holding of match funds, he will communicate the information with the County.
Harper said he does want to point out that large projects close out independent of anything else. As soon as the work is complete and the invoices have been submitted, HSEMD executes the close out with FEMA. As soon as FEMA affirms the cost, HSEMD executes the diversion for the federal funds, the increase, and the State share. Smaller projects have to be closed out all at one time. Hopkins described how the funding for different types of eligible work was broken down on the handout. He also referred to a section of the handout that illustrates how the eligible funding could be used for a project other than the Sutliff Bridge. For an alternate project, 90% of the 90% Federal share would be available, and the 10% State share would still be available. Hopkins said the money allotted could be used for a multitude of different things, and he thinks information has been providing to the County regarding the types of eligible, alternate projects. The cap for alternate projects would be $1.4 million.
Sullivan asked Hopkins if he thinks spending the money on something other than the Sutliff Bridge would hurt the County’s relationship with the State and Federal Government. Hopkins said the worksheet is written to replace the damaged element, but it is the County’s prerogative to decide what to use the funds for. Harper said there is an eligible alternative under the Stafford Act and the grant program, and it actually happens quite often. Harney asked what would qualify as an eligible alternative. Harper said it is mentioned in the handout under ‘alternate project’, and an example is using the money to buy equipment that the County uses. However, an alternate project would also have to be approved by the State and FEMA and go through the consultation process with their partners on the historical side. Sullivan said he would imagine that views regarding the use of the money for an alternate project depend more on the personal feelings of members of the House and Senate than on rules. Hopkins said the County has a worksheet that has gone through and been obligated. It is being modified, as Harper previously mentioned, and will go through the review process, but it will not go back through Washington. Harper said the State Historic Preservation Office representatives will heavily influence what happens in the end.
Stutsman said she is unclear on what the alternate project may involve. She asked if the alternative project must be related to the Sutliff Bridge or if it could be used to repair an unrelated road. Harper indicated that the project does not need to be related to the bridge. Harney said something would still have to be done with the remaining bridge; it would either have to be removed or stabilized. FEMA Environmental and Historic Preservation Branch Director Eric Weiland said that is correct and the cost for doing so would come out of the capped amount. Neuzil said it is strange that there is so much flexibility with the funding because it is taxpayers’ money.
Sullivan said he wants to make sure that everyone understands that VJ Engineering has made it clear that leaving the existing bridge in its current state is not an option. The remaining structure is slowly turning and will eventually collapse without intervention. Weiland agreed and said leaving it in its current state would be viewed as potentially hazardous to other structures downstream. Sullivan clarified that doing nothing is not an option and Weiland agreed. Harper said a typical alternate project request would state what will be done to stabilize the remaining structure and what the remaining balance of the money will be used for. That would then end up on a project worksheet. Sullivan said his understanding is that the best way to stabilize the bridge would be to bring something from the east bank to the center pier. There would either need to be a replacement or it would need to be torn down; there is no in-between. Harper agreed. Weiland added that the VJ Engineering report indicates that the piers themselves also need work for stabilization.
Stutsman asked if the money could be divided up for several projects. Hopkins and Harper nodded. Sullivan asked VJ Engineering representatives when a project would need to get started to be done within FEMA guidelines. Jacob said if design work is done over the winter, they could let the project in late spring or early summer. He thinks that is possible if they get started in the next couple of weeks. It would probably take more than one construction season to replace the bridge in kind. Jacob thinks it would be completed in 2011. Parker asked if Jacob thinks there will be any permit holdups. Jacob said it is always a possibility. Sullivan said the Board has talked about having a public informational session to obtain feedback from the public before making an official vote. He asked if it would be okay if that was completed by Thanksgiving. Porter said State Historic Preservation Office Representatives would be willing to attend that hearing and are interested in the community’s reaction. Neuzil said that meeting has been scheduled for October 19, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in conference rooms 203B and 203C of the Health and Human Services Building. Johnson said they have not yet determined the format of the meeting. Stutsman said she thinks it’s a great idea to have as many representatives at the meeting as possible and thinks it will be very helpful for the community.
Jones said he wants the Board to be aware that a decision to remove the bridge will probably be an adverse effect under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There would have to be a memorandum of agreement, and the State Historic Preservation Office Representatives would ask for mitigation for the loss of the resource. In this case, they would probably be asking for public outreach about the bridge, the history of the community, and what the bridge meant to people. It may also be an opportunity to begin the trail discussions. There are other entities that would have to be asked for input as well, including the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission, the Sutliff Bridge Authority, and other interested parties. Although it is an option, it would take some time to sort things out. Harney asked Jones if he means that damages would be sought when he uses the term ‘mitigation’. Jones said no, he is talking about requesting something to mitigate the loss of the property when he refers to mitigation for Section 106 consultation purposes. Public outreach is one example. It generally involves reinvesting in the community to record the history. Coralville is using some of the money they received for losses for additional signs addressing the history of the community. Boone County is obtaining kiosks to provide information about a damaged tunnel and its importance related to the local railway history.
Neuzil said it is helpful to know that information and to understand the options. However, if the Board decides to choose the alternate project option, they need to be aware of the consequences of that choice. They would need to make a significant argument regarding the reason they were not able to fix the existing bridge and restore its functionality. He thinks it would be a difficult argument to make considering the potential, alternative funding. Porter said he wants to be clear that the interest of the State Historic Preservation Office is to preserve and repair the historic fabric and the bridge. They obviously can’t guarantee funding, but they will do anything they can to work with the County to look at potential grant options to help with the local funding gap. He thinks there are some potential resources, and there is a wonderful local group that is dedicated to the bridge. Not every County has that resource. Howell said the Sutliff Bridge Authority has been trying to preserve the bridge for 5 years, and there are other people who are very interested in doing so. With Johnson County’s history of preserving bridges and trails in the Kent Park area, he thinks this would be a good project for them to pursue.
Sullivan said it is nice to hear that they can contact the State Historic Preservation Office for assistance since obtaining grants can be overwhelming. Porter said Vander Molen is very knowledgeable about their grant programs. Jones encouraged the Board to communicate with other entities that have gone through the process and to learn about the different options to consider. He again referred to the Hale Bridge Project in Jones County as an example of a similar project.
Harney said another area of concern is the lead based paint that is on the existing span and the cost of removing it and repainting. He is wondering what type of finish the new bridge span will have. Jacob said a nonhazardous, modern coating would be used for the new bridge span. He said the lead on the existing structure does not pose a problem unless there are children ingesting the lead. The lead has to be either airborne or ingested to pose a hazard; simply rubbing on it is not hazardous. Harney asked what repainting the bridge would involve. Jacob said it would involve containment to prevent airborne lead. Porter said it can be done. Jacob agreed and said it is done all the time. It was a very expensive process 15 years ago, but it is now common place and there are people who specialize in that type of removal and abatement. It is not a really difficult project anymore.
Weiland said he wants to refer back to the memorandum of agreement process. He said the funding for the mitigation pieces referred to by Jones would be in addition to the funding amounts listed on the handout. It would involve an additional funding stream that would be approved through the memorandum of agreement process to address the costs of the mitigation actions. The cost would not come out of the capped amount for the alternate project as the demolition cost would. Jones asked who would pay for other Section 106 consultation or environmental issues if the County chooses to do an alternate project from which they arise. Weiland responded that FEMA would cover the costs. He clarified that if the historic resource has been affected, the Federal government will compensate Johnson County for that loss through additional funding for different things. Johnson asked if that funding would be in addition to the capped budget. Weiland said yes. Jones asked who would pay for an archaeological survey if the County chose to do a road project that has not already been surveyed. Parker said the County usually does not request or utilize Federal funds for that purpose; it is paid out of local funds.
Neuzil said it is beneficial to have people from these different agencies together in the same room for this discussion. He said the Board is interested in having people from the Sutliff area attend the meeting scheduled for October 19, 2009 to voice their opinions regarding the potential options. Neuzil thinks the options have been narrowed down to three, including replace in kind, cable stay, and the alternate project option. It they decide to move forward with repairing the bridge, there will need to be a lengthy discussion regarding how to obtain $350,000 that has not been budgeted for. There would also be a question of whether it would be paid for over a series of years or up front to save money by having the projects done together. Neuzil said if the Board is interested in moving forward with the bridge repair, it sounds like the FEMA paper requesting additional dollars should be submitted by Thanksgiving. Harney asked what would happen if a new event causes damage to the bridge after it has been repaired. Harper said if a subsequent flooding event impacts the bridge and there is a federal declaration, the County would be eligible for repairs to the bridge under the Stafford Act.
Stutsman asked if the format of the meeting scheduled for October 19, 2009 should be discussed at this time. Johnson said he would like some direction on that and thinks this would be a good opportunity for receiving it. He thinks it will be difficult to obtain feedback on the alternate project option when they do not currently know what it would be. Alternatively, identifying the project would be difficult before knowing whether or not that option would be chosen. Sullivan said the idea is what the format of the meeting will be. Stutsman asked if there should be presentations from various people. Sullivan said he thinks three tables could be set up to describe each option in detail, and people could walk from one table to the next to obtain information. Neuzil said that could occur for the first half hour of the meeting, and then they could subsequently have a question and answer session to obtain feedback. He said there was initially strong opinion in favor of repairing the Sutliff Bridge; however, the emails he has recently received are generally in favor of an alternate approach. Neuzil said he would like to hear feedback regarding whether or not people think it is worth it to have to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars locally to repair the bridge. Stutsman said it will also be an opportunity to hear some creative ideas for how to preserve the bridge. Grants, public funding, and CAT funding have been mentioned this morning as potential funding sources for the project. Community members may have other ideas for ways to approach the project and make it a reality. She is certainly open to hearing those ideas.
Johnson asked agency representatives to let him know if they are planning to be at the meeting. There could potentially be a table set up for people who are willing and able to answer questions. Stutsman asked who will be organizing the meeting. Johnson asked if there will be a formal presentation. Neuzil said he thinks they would just need the PowerPoint presentation to blow up a couple of pictures to show the cable stay option versus the replace in kind option. Another picture could show what the river would look like without the bridge. Porter said he wants to compliment VJ Engineering firm for providing a fair, balanced report. He thinks they laid out all of the options very fairly. Sullivan agreed and Neuzil agreed. Neuzil said it is exciting and amazing to see the attendance there is at this meeting today. He said the will plan to get together on October 19, 2009, the Board will have an opportunity to visit people there, and some decision regarding their direction will be made before Thanksgiving.
Harney said if three separate tables are set up at the meeting, he is not sure how the Recorder will be able to take minutes at each location. Maybe there needs to be a viewing and then a separate question and answer session where discussion can be recorded. Sullivan said they have done that with road projects on several occasions. Stutsman said they will not be deliberating, just presenting the different scenarios. Parker said he thinks it would be helpful to have examples or large scale layouts to make it easy for the public to see. Stutsman said she agrees Parker because the public may not have time that evening to read the report. Neuzil said they have the capability with their computers to do that. Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said he can provide assistance in creating color reproductions in large scale. Johnson said they could also have the three displays set up in nearby rooms, so the Board members are not all in the same room. Neuzil agreed that they would want to respect the fact that there should not be more than three Supervisors at any one display. He said it is good to make sure they are aware of the Open Meetings Law.
Amana Colonies Historical Sites Foundation Executive Director Laura Hoover said they just closed out a remarkably similar FEMA project last week. They had to come up with about $200,000 of their own mitigation money, and she thinks it is a very doable project. Her team consisted of Jones, Hopkins, and Moeller, and she does not think the County could have a better team. The Foundation raised $160,000 of their own mitigation money through a Historic Sites Preservation Grant and a Historical Resource Development Program Grant. She said the $1 million spent by FEMA in Iowa County last winter kept a good number of businesses in the area in operation. Contractors used the local hotels, for example. It is a good project for the County, and they have received almost all of their State funding. The worth of history in the County cannot be underestimated. If you lose it now, it is gone forever and cannot be replaced. Sullivan said he thinks it would be nice if Hoover or someone else from the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission were present at the meeting scheduled for October 19, 2009.
Adjourned at 10:26 a.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2009
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on October 20, 2009 at 11:15 a.m.