MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 4, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Five-Year Road Construction Program.................................................................................... 1
Other................................................................................................................................... 23
Discussion from the Public.................................................................................................... 24
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 1:03 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Stutsman said she understands there was discussion on a radio station this morning about the Board of Supervisors discussing Newport Road and potentially adding it to the Five Year Road Plan. She wants it to be known that there is not interest among any of the Board members in adding Newport Road, and it is not included in the Five Year Road Plan. County Engineer Greg Parker thanked Stutsman for mentioning that because he wasn’t aware that it was even being discussed.
Parker stated that he gave the Board a copy of the draft 5 Year Road Program, as presented from Secondary Roads, earlier in the week. He also sent a draft copy of the Johnson County 5 Year Construction Program 2011-2015 map to the Board. The projects in the document should match the projects on the map.
Parker said he would like to briefly discuss two stimulus projects for FY11. One of the projects is the Dubuque Street Recreational Trail Phase II. Although funding for the project is still uncertain, limits may be added if the Federal Funding application is approved. Parker said it is his understanding that Secondary Roads should determine whether the stimulus funds will be available before making modifications and bringing it before the Board for consideration at an Informal Board Meeting, unless the Board would like to have another work session.
Parker remarked that 520th Street is the other project for which Secondary Roads is planning on utilizing stimulus funds. He said the project was in the Five Year Road Construction Program for FY09, which the Board did approve. However, Secondary Roads did not move it into the FY10 Five Year Road Construction Program because funding had not been secured. In addition, because it is already in the Five Year Road Construction Program, it would just involve making a modification to the description and moving the section of the roadway that is planned to be done as part of the stimulus project. The section from Utah Avenue to Wapsi Avenue is the part of 520th Street that Secondary Roads is looking at including as part of the stimulus program. It is the one mile section between those two paved intersections. Secondary Roads would probably also do some intersection work for both of those projects. The other miles of 520th Street from Wapsi Avenue to the Johnson County/Muscatine County boundary line would be kept for future years.
Rettig asked if the project is listed as FY12-A, 520th Street Pavement Rehabilitation with Paved Shoulders. Neuzil said it is part of FY12-A. Parker confirmed that it is FY12-A. Rettig asked if it is all of FY12-A. Parker said no. He explained that what is in the FY10 Five Year Road Construction Program is 520th Street from Utah Avenue to the Johnson County/Muscatine County boundary line. The project is going to be scaled back to just one mile because only $1.12 million of stimulus dollars will be available, and the County will not have the funds to cover the rest of the project. He said the estimate to complete the one mile section is more than the amount of stimulus funds available, but it was thought to be a good location to complete pavement because it is between two main intersections on a through route. Parker said Secondary Roads would scale out that one mile section and plan to do the other three miles in future years, as part of the Five Year Road Construction Program.
Parker reported that it is unknown if the stimulus bill has been approved by the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate, although he thinks it has been approved by the House. Following approval by the Senate, President Barack Obama would need to sign it. At that point, the changes would be made, and those two projects would be included in the Five Year Road Construction Program. Parker thinks those are the only two projects not included in the current draft program, and he is willing to go over everything else in the draft with the Board.
Parker said the projects in the draft Five Year Road Construction Program are broken down into three or four areas depending on the types of projects Secondary Roads will be working on in the specified fiscal year. He said he will briefly scan through the first few pages of the document and come back to FY11-A. The first group listed is Grade and Pave Projects. The second page includes Bridges and Culverts, and the third page is Recreational Trail Projects or any other specially designated projects listed. Parker said they would be grouped together by type of construction, and the letters assigned to the projects are not in order of any preference, special funding purpose, or other reason.
Parker said he is going to start speaking about FY11-A, which is the 540th Street Grading and Paving (Twin County Dairy) project. The project has been in the Five Year Road Construction Program for awhile. Secondary Roads actually could have had it constructed and completed last year, but the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) asked the County to hold off on it while an intersection study was conducted. After the study was completed, IDOT determined that there was no need to make any changes to the intersection, and the County was given the green light to proceed. He said he has given the Board monthly updates on the project. Sullivan said he thought the State of Iowa was going to construct a turn lane at that intersection. Parker responded that IDOT is not recommending any changes to the intersection. Stutsman said that is hard to believe, and she would almost question their traffic counts. A decision has already been made though. Harney remarked that someone from IDOT informed him that horses and buggies have a certain amount of seconds to cross the intersection and expanding the intersection would create more of a hazard than already exists. Neuzil said he did not think of that. Stutsman agreed and said she would have thought the opposite to be true. Rettig asked for the amount the local developer is contributing to the project. Parker said he does not have the exact dollar amount, but it is approximately $70,000. He offered to provide the information, if desired.
Parker said FY11-B is the Oakdale Boulevard Extension project. He acknowledged that the Board is up to date on the progression of the project. He said Secondary Roads is still waiting for environmental clearances for the project, but they are anticipating a bid letting in the fall of 2010, as previously discussed. He clarified that it could take place in October or November 2010 if everything moves along nicely. Sullivan asked if any work, such as moving dirt, would occur in December 2010 or if it would have to wait until spring. Assistant County Engineer Al Miller said it would depend on the contractor. His guess is that it would be left open for free winter work to give the contractor that option without being charged workdays. Miller said it would certainly be beneficial to get some of the structure work done and dirt moved in the Fall of 2010 so it can settle prior to paving in the Spring and Summer of 2011. Stutsman asked how long the project is anticipated to take, if everything goes smoothly. Miller replied that it would definitely take a minimum of a full construction season because there is a lot of work involved. The contractor could get started in December 2010, depending on the weather and because it’s obviously not a traffic issue. Harney asked if the bridge adds to the timeframe. Miller responded that it will need to be done before the grading work is done. It will be a full season project, six to eight months. Harney remarked that he thought it would take longer than that. Stutsman agreed and said she was afraid it was going to take two years. Miller said no, hopefully not.
Parker said FY11-C is the 120th Street Grading and Paving project from 2,000 feet west of James Avenue to Curtis Bridge Road. The length of 2,000 feet is an approximation because it will connect to the existing pavement of a project that has already been let. That construction is going to begin in the spring of 2010. He said FY11-C will connect to the new pavement and continue through the intersection or at the intersection of Curtis Bridge Road. Parker said the Board recently indicated that they would like the project to proceed. He and Neuzil met with Shueyville Mayor Bryan Bredman during the first week of February 2010 and discussed the project. He said Shueyville City Engineer Dave Schechinger, but Veenstra & Kimm Transportation Engineer Leland Belding is filling in for him today. He is present at this work session to answer any questions regarding the project.
Stutsman asked Parker if all of the local funding will be done by bonding, with the idea that the City of Shueyville will pay the County back. Parker said yes. He explained that it is listed as a local fund source in the Five Year Road Construction Program document because the County is not using Farm-to-Market funds, Federal funds, or any other fund sources outside the County budget. Parker said his understanding is that the local dollars would not come directly out of the Secondary Roads fund, and the project is being considered more of a special locally paid project. Although it is coming from a different fund source, it is paid out of County dollars. Parker said it will not affect the Secondary Roads Budget.
Neuzil said he and Parker broke the project up into three sections when they began putting together a game plan for it. The first section consisted of the actual design project and obtaining an updated estimate, which Parker has put together with Schechinger. The second section involved the budget, bonding, and making sure the dollars are available to fund it. Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne and County Treasurer Tom Kriz have been working on that. The third section involves legal considerations. It involves creating an agreement for the County to fund the project and the City of Shueyville to pay the County back over a 20 year period. He said Executive Assistant Andy Johnson has been working on that with Dorsey and Whitney, LLP Bond Counsel Attorney Robert Josten, and he will be communicating closely with County Attorney Janet Lyness, City of Shueyville Attorney Jon McCright, and Parker. Neuzil said the Board is going to start having monthly updates during Key Issues Meetings to ensure that everyone is up to date on the progress of the project.
Sullivan said he feels pretty strongly that the portion of the road located in Shueyville should have a sidewalk to accommodate pedestrians. Right now there is no place to go, and it does not make sense with a church and daycare located there. He said it sounded like the Shueyville City Leaders were in favor of having some kind of pedestrian access. If the County is going to do this project, he wants to make sure it is done right. Belding said he believes that is the latest goal for everyone involved. There has even been discussion of doing some grading for the western part, which is more of a rural section, so that a trail connection could be added in the future. Sullivan reiterated that if the County is going to pay for this, he wants to make sure it is a complete street through the urban section. Stutsman said she is not interested in spending the money to have curb and gutter constructed in the rural area. Neuzil said Bredman seemed adamant about pedestrian access as well, particularly for some of the neighborhoods. He added that Bredman also seemed supportive of making sure a future Shueyville City Council has the ability to construct additional urban sections, if possible. For now, pedestrian access will reach James Avenue and hopefully connect to some of the other subdivisions that are being planned.
Rettig asked if the western portion, which is the rural section of the project, will have paved shoulders. Neuzil and Belding replied yes. Belding added that the section east of James Avenue will be the urban section. Parker said there will be paved shoulders on the rural cross section of the roadway, which will transition into a curb and gutter section. He said the goal for the rural section is to have the availability to have a sidewalk.
Harney said he has been contacted several times in the past in regards to road access for Jefferson-Monroe Fire Department volunteers. There is concern because the volunteers will need to be able to get to the fire department. Harney asked if access will be available for those individuals. Parker said a meeting with Jefferson-Monroe Fire Department Fire Chief Mark Espe was held on February 3, 2010. Belden said a lane will need to be maintained there because there is no other way around. Part of the phasing plan is to construct half of the road in one phase, followed by the other half. He said that a traffic signal may be located at each end. Sullivan asked if there would be a pilot car. Belden said no, because access will have to be available 24 hours a day, some sort of signalized traffic control device will be used.
Assistant County Engineer Ed Bartels reported that he met with Parker and Jefferson-Monroe Fire Department Secretary Gene Beard on February 3, 2010 to discuss the traffic control plans for FY11-D, which is the 120th Street Pavement Replacement and Highway 965 Pavement Rehabilitation project planned for FY10. Work has been done with an engineer to get a traffic control plan similar to that used for the Highway 965 project in 2009. He said the route will be one-way and inconvenient for some folks, but it will always be open. Bartels said they also discussed that the one lane restriction really only applies to the public driving around; it is not meant to apply to emergency vehicles. They discussed the site distances. By proceeding with caution, emergency services people can get anywhere they need to get, at any time. They will always have at least 12 feet of lane available.
Parker said FY11-D is a joint project with the City of Cedar Rapids for 120th Street Pavement Replacement and Highway 965 Pavement Rehabilitation. He previously presented this project, and the Board approved the 28E agreement to work with the City of Cedar Rapids. He reported that to accomplish this project the County will pick up the full cost and the City of Cedar Rapids will reimburse the County for their section of the improvements on a biweekly payment schedule. The money will be reported and directly put back into the Farm-to-Market fund source. Parker said it is a stimulus project, and the County will receive $560,000 from the Federal government once the project has been completed. Stimulus funding for the entire project was not received, however. There are actually two projects for FY10 that did not receive full stimulus funding. Parker said it is anticipated that the contractor will start as soon as he/she can, but Secondary Roads has not yet heard from the contractor or set up a preconstruction meeting for the project. He said construction will start in FY10, but will carry over into FY11, which is why it is listed for FY11. He said the goal was to have it completed by November 15 of this year.
Stutsman asked if Parker is referring to November 15, 2010. Parker explained that November 15 is typically the time for winter shutdown. He said he is referencing the end of the construction year. This particular project does not allow for winter work for the winter of FY11, although it was allowed during the winter of FY10. The preconstruction meeting has not been held yet so the contractor's start date is unknown. Parker explained that projects have a late start date, which contractors are required to begin work by. The contractor starts accumulating liquidated damages for the project following the late date start date if work has not begun.
Sullivan asked Parker if he remembers getting Average Daily Traffic Counts (ADTs) a couple of years ago and that a couple of them looked like they were off. He said he may be wrong, but he thinks the ADT for Highway 965 was approximately 6,000 cars a day in 2005 or 2006. The last time the ADT for Highway 965 came back, it was lowered to around 3,000 cars a day. Sullivan wonders if a mistake could have been made. From talking to people who live in the area, it doesn’t sound anecdotally like the amount of traffic has decreased by half, although it obviously decreased when the County did the road project on Highway 965. He asked whether the ADT number is low and if it even matters, now that the road project is complete.
Parker explained that the traffic counts are done by IDOT, unless Secondary Roads does a special count, which they do every four years. He added that the County is due to have their traffic counts repeated in the summer of 2010, which means they won’t be received until approximately February of 2011. Parker said the counts will be incorporated next year, and Secondary Roads will then have to reevaluate for the Johnson County Dust Control Safety Program and all of the other functions that would be updated.
Sullivan stated that it is probably a moot point now that the road project has been finished, but he thought IDOT had to have screwed that one up. Parker said he does not recall double checking the IDOT traffic count. Sullivan reiterated that since it is a new road, it might not even matter. It just caught his attention because he remembers the ADT being 6,000 when they were talking about having to redo Highway 965, and later it was only 3,000 cars. He doesn’t know whether the IDOT only counted traffic going in one direction. Parker said he will follow up on Sullivan’s question. He reported that the traffic count numbers listed under each project on the Five Year Road Construction Program are the ADTs from the IDOT traffic count maps.
Parker continued with FY11-E, which is the Oak Crest Hill Road Pavement Rehabilitation and Paved Shoulders project from Highway 921 to just south of Hills. He said the majority of the construction for this project was completed in the summer of 2009, but there are some final items to do to finish out the project. Those items include some final seeding activities. Parker said the project was put in the FY11 budget because there may be some expenditure for this project after July 1, 2010. The contractor may have to come back and fix some things, but the project is substantially complete. Sullivan asked if the State requires the County to keep the project in the plan until it is closed out. Parker replied that it must be included in the program if it is expected that the County will spend any dollars on the project during FY11. Stutsman said the $3.2 million cost that is listed is deceiving because that is the cost of the entire project and most of it has already been taken care of. Sullivan agreed and said he is also trying to think in terms of what the budget looks like and what has already been spent.
Parker moved on to FY11-F in the Five Year Road Construction Program, also called the Oak Crest Hill Road Pavement Rehabilitation and Paved Shoulders project. He said it could be considered Phase II of the full Oak Crest Hills project. He said this project starts where the new pavement leaves off on the south side of Hills and continues south to the Johnson County/Washington County line. He said he would like to discuss a couple events that happened with this project. One is that a bridge wing wall collapsed on a box culvert around the same time as the bid letting for the project. The damage was located south of a structure that is part of the Five Year Road Construction Program, but not a part of this particular project. He said there is not a lot that can be done about the damage at this point. Because it is a stimulus project, the amount expended out of the County’s Farm-to-Market funds for this project will be reimbursed with Federal funding once it is complete.
Parker said there is one bridge that is scheduled to be replaced as part of this project, and it is labeled FY11-F on the Johnson County 5-Year Construction Program 2011-2015 map. The box wing wall collapsed and fell off just south of the replacement structure. He said one requirement for the stimulus funds was that the County could not acquire right-of-way. In addition, they could not have any environmental clearances needed and could not do any wetland permits. Basically, the stimulus projects had to be shovel-ready projects without any encumbrances. The way the stimulus projects work is not Secondary Roads’ standard mode of operation. Typically, Secondary Roads replaces the structures first, which is what was done for IWV Road. The pavement is done all at once at some point in the future. In this case, however, it had to be done backwards.
Parker said replacement for the location just above FY11-F and FY11-J on the Johnson County 5-Year Construction Program 2011-2015 map was not initially planned. After further investigation, however, it was determined that it will need to be replaced, which is why it was added to the draft Five Year Road Construction Program. He said Secondary Roads will have to box out, or leave a section of pavement on both sides of both of the structures until the bridges are replaced. The sections that had to be boxed out for the paving project will subsequently be paved. Parker reiterated that Secondary Roads does not normally operate that way, but they had to do so for this project.
Parker said Assistant County Engineer Robert Winstead is working on the F1-F project and both Winstead and Miller are working on the FY11-J project. The FY11-F project may be reconstructed during the summer of 2010. Although Secondary Roads staff members are diligently working on the design for the project so it can be let, the timeline depends on the timeliness of the contractor who will pave the road. He explained that Secondary Roads would not want to have two contractors in the way of each other. The south bridge will be completed in the summer of 2010 if it can be. If not, the goal will most likely be to have the bid lettings for both of the projects locally and complete them during the summer of 2011.
Parker said three projects were just discussed. The focus of the discussion is the fact that pavement will be left out, and there will have to be transitions before and after the bridge. There will be a 400-foot section out of one bridge and a 900-foot section out of the other bridge. He said Secondary Roads staff is aware of it, and the projects will be completed by the end of next year. Otherwise, the right-of-way would have more than likely had to be purchased, and stimulus funds could not have been used. Harney asked if the stimulus funds will be affected. Parker said no, it does not affect the stimulus reimbursement for the project.
Parker continued with the Bridges and Culverts section in the draft Five Year Road Construction Program. He said FY11-G, the Bridge Replacement and Approach Paving on Black Diamond Road, is currently under construction. Although the bridge is substantially complete, the approaches are not. Parker explained that the contractor had to shut the project down due to the winter, and the road is closed. The contractor has a certain number of working days to complete the project, and Parker is hoping it will be finished as soon as they are available to do the work. Because expenses may be anticipated for FY11 due to unknowns related to Mother Nature, the project was included in the FY11 Five Year Road Construction Program. Parker is hoping it will be completed prior to June 30, 2010, however.
Parker continued with FY11-H, which is the Bridge Replacement and Approach Grading on Cosgrove Road. He said the structure was damaged by a driver who hit it and noted that it was a pony truss bridge. Parker said all of the initial cross section data has been taken, and Secondary Roads is meeting with Linn County to discuss a structure replacement strategy. He said he will be bringing a 28E Agreement forward for the Board’s consideration. The plan is for Linn County to do the design for Johnson County and to put a timber structure back in the location. Parker said it would be very similar to the bridge on the north side of Johnson County near Ely. It is on the Johnson County/Linn County boundary line, the first bridge west of Ely Road before the T intersection. Parker said he has taken several Board members there, but he is not sure if Rettig has been there.
Parker said he thinks the cost estimate currently listed in the draft Five Year Road Construction Program is based on putting in a concrete structure. Obviously, the cost of a wood structure would be considerably less. He said it is his understanding that the Board was going to set aside insurance reimbursement monies and apply those funds towards the complete construction of the bridge replacement. The difference will need to be found in the County’s local construction budget.
Parker said project FY11-I is the Bridge Replacement on the Johnson Cedar Road. A bridge will be replaced, and a box culvert will be put in. He reported that the Board has already approved the 28E Agreement with Cedar County, and the cost estimate for Johnson County is $50,000. Parker said it is his understanding that Cedar County Engineer Robert Fangmann is going to do the bid letting for the project within the next 30 days. Parker said the project will probably continue over the summer of 2010 construction season. Including the project in the FY11 Five Year Road Construction Program would mean that it is anticipated that money will be spent during FY11 to finish out the project.
Parker said FY11-J, which is the Bridge Replacement on Oak Crest Hill Road, is located over Crooked Creek and is one of the two bridges on the map that he previously discussed. Secondary Roads is diligently working on completing the design for the bridge. Parker said there will probably be a Fall 2010 bid letting for the project and construction activity beginning in the spring of 2011. Neuzil asked if the road will be closed during two different construction years. Parker confirmed this. Stutsman asked if the access for this project will be done the same way as it was for completion of the north end, when the road was open the whole time during construction. Winstead said it is his understanding that the paving improvements already under contract will be done in a similar manner, with one-way access throughout completion of the project. However, when Secondary Roads does replace the structure with the bridge, the road will be closed at the structure because there will be a complete bridge removal and replacement.
Rettig said Buchanan County Engineer Brian Keierleber presented his innovative use of railroad cars to replace bridges on highways at the Iowa Bicycle Summit on the day that Winstead was not present. She explained that Keierleber presented at the Iowa Bicycle Summit because the technique can also be used on trails. She said Keierleber is able to do these bridge replacements at 25% to 30% of the cost of new bridges. Rettig said the weight load bearing of these bridges is being found to be as high as that of those built otherwise. Rettig said Keierleber is also looking at using new bridge abutments that are more affordable on some of these roads. She added that Keierleber puts any surface on the bridge, for example gravel or chip seal. He is in the process of looking at using tanker cars for box culverts.
Rettig said Keierleber has a line on 100 railroad cars and is getting other counties involved. She said she has visited these bridges. From the surface, they look like any other bridge, but from underneath, it can be seen that the metal is from railroad cars. Winstead asked if the technique is mostly used on gravel roads and if it has been used on paved roads. Rettig said Keierleber is using the technique for both gravel and chip seal surfaces. She said Keierleber can replace a bridge for $70,000 to $80,000 when a new bridge would cost $315,000.
Rettig said she is fascinated and encouraged Secondary Roads staff to talk to Keierleber about what he is doing. She added that the technique has been used in Pennsylvania and nearby areas for a while now. Rettig said she will send an email to Secondary Roads with the webpage link to Keierleber’s PowerPoint presentation. It seems to her that the County should use more efficient and affordable techniques if they are available. Winstead asked if Keierleber’s presentation was on the morning of January 30, 2010. Rettig confirmed this. She reiterated that she has seen Keierleber’s bridges, and they are absolutely amazing and very innovative. Parker replied that Secondary Roads staff will definitely look into it.
Parker said FY11-K is the Bridge Replacement on Sharon Center Road. He said staff responsibilities have been shifted because of issues that have arisen regarding the bridges on Oak Crest Hill Road. He reported that Miller is handling the design for the Sharon Center Road Bridge, but it has been delayed a bit. A Fall 2011 bid letting is now anticipated.
Parker said FY11-L, which is the Mehaffey Bridge Replacement, was already in the Five Year Road Construction Program. It was moved into the FY11 program because Secondary Roads staff is hoping to procure Federal funds to replace the bridge. He said money has been set aside for the bridge replacement, but if Secondary Roads can receive Federal funding to replace the bridge, the County might be able to use the other funds for the Mehaffey Road project, along with a separated trail. Parker reported that the design for the project has been completed. Parker said Secondary Roads staff members were hopeful that the funding for the project would have come a little earlier. However, it is a two year construction project, and it will require the work of a couple of engineers and all of the technical staff within Secondary Roads just to manage this one project, due to its complexity. Neuzil asked if the Mehaffey Bridge is the largest bridge in Johnson County. Parker responded that it might be. Neuzil added that the Tri-County Bridge, where Johnson, Washington, and Louisa counties intersect, is a big one too. Harney commented that the new bridge on Highway 965 might be the largest. He said the State gave the new bridge on Highway 965 to Johnson County. Sullivan added that the Sutliff Bridge is approximately 700 feet.
Harney recalled that Parker previously said completion of the project would take about one year less to complete if the road is closed completely for the project than if just one lane is closed at a time to keep traffic moving. He asked if the latter would take another year and cost an additional $1 million. Parker said construction time and costs are definitely reduced with any construction project if the contractor can be allowed to do their work without having to deal with traffic driving through the site. He explained that the contractor is guessing what their costs are going to be for the duration of the project and that shortening the timeframe is beneficial.
Parker said the current construction plan is to work around the existing Mehaffey Bridge and to have at least one lane open for the duration of project. There may be times that the lane would need to be shut down for a short period of time, however. He said it would shorten the construction timeframe and save the County money to close the road completely. Stutsman said people had a fit when the Mehaffey Bridge was closed for three days due to the flood in June 2008 so she doesn’t think there is any way the County could shut it down for construction.
Rettig asked if the one open access lane will be a full lane width or if it will be narrower. Parker replied that he did not bring the plans with him, but he thinks it would be 11 or 12 feet wide. Rettig said she is wondering if RVs and boats will still be able to traverse the bridge. Parker responded that anything 12 feet or less should be able to get through the one lane access without a problem. He did acknowledge, however, that the lane will be tight and will require that drivers take it slow. The width should accommodate these vehicles, but if it does not, they are going to have to drive around another way.
Rettig asked if money has been secured from the East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) for the Mehaffey Bridge project. Parker said no, not for this project. Rettig asked if Secondary Roads is trying to get stimulus money for the project. Parker responded that he thinks it is part of the package that Neuzil and Harney will be taking on the Chamber Trip to Washington D.C. from February 8, 2010 through February 10, 2010. Rettig asked why it was programmed to be local funding. Parker replied that almost $3.2 million is set aside in a special fund source for the Mehaffey Bridge. The difference would have had to come from another fund source. There was always a plan to try to procure additional funds to cover the difference.
Sullivan said a bunch of gravel roads went under when the Federal government flooded the area. He said Curtis Bridge used to be a real bridge. The Federal government gave Johnson County a lump sum payment to cover damages for a timeframe of 50 years. Harney added that the payment was for all future damages and was built with interest over the years, which is where the County used to get gravel money for Secondary Roads. He noted that it was subsequently placed in a separate trust account. Rettig asked if there is $3.2 million left in that trust account. Parker answered that it is approximately $3.187 million, but he rounded it up to $3.2 million.
Neuzil said one of the pitches for the Chamber Trip is that the addition of the separated sidewalk or trail on that bridge has increased the cost by about $1 million. He added that part of the pitch is the fact that the County does have some money available for the project. He said he and Harney will both talk a lot about the trail and why the connectivity is necessary while they are in Washington D.C. Sullivan said the piers on both sides are going to be on Federally owned land, which is another selling point.
Stutsman said the Board always knew that the replacement of the Mehaffey Bridge was going to be a terrifically expensive project. Parker agreed that it is an expensive project and added that it is also very intensive and complex. Secondary Roads will be setting up a video feed to watch the construction. The goal is to set up the video the same way it was set up for the buildings so it can be seen live and people can view the activities and updates taking place. He commented that the new Mehaffey Bridge is a unique design, and the consultant did a good job on it. Secondary Roads staff members are excited to get the project done, but it is a two year project and will take a lot of staff.
Parker said FY11-M is the Culvert Replacement on Oak Crest Hill Road. He said it is the north structure that Secondary Roads is replacing and working on right now. He reported that an inspection of it was done, and it is starting to show erosion beyond what Secondary Roads staff members are comfortable with. He stated that it is one of the structures previously discussed. A section would initially be left out with a plan to replace it during the summer of 2011. Parker said a preliminary look at the hydraulics of the structure was done, and it is smaller than the requirements for that specific area. Obviously, it would be redesigned so it does meet the drainage area. It would be covered as a part of future design activities.
Harney asked if there will still be any narrowing areas to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Parker responded that the pavement for the project that is going to be constructed this year will look just like the north section of Oak Crest Hill Road. Unfortunately, Secondary Roads will have to neck the pavement down, or narrow it down, to a transition point and a distance to match the existing pavement. On the other side of the bridge, it will be widened back out to the paved shoulder section on that side.
Neuzil asked if the new bridge design will have wider pedestrian access. Parker said yes. Harney said that is what he was saying. Parker said he may have misunderstood what Harney what saying. He said the replacement structures would have the same width and accommodate the same width that the pavement would be able to handle. Neuzil said there is narrowing on Sand Road that people are familiar with. That is a different bridge, however. Stutsman said the Sand Road Bridge was fairly new when Sand Road was redone so it did not make sense to redo it. Parker said the Sand Road Bridge is a good example of what the two existing structures will look like until Secondary Roads can replace them. They will subsequently be widened out.
Parker moved on to the Recreational Trail Projects section of the Five Year Road Construction Program. He said FY11-N can be called phase I of the Dubuque Street Recreational Trail. The location of the project is from West Overlook Road to 275th Street. Some unforeseen events happened last fall. There were lots of water problems that the contractor is diligently trying to address. The project had to be shut down over the winter, however. He said the project is included in the FY11 draft Five Year Road Construction Program because there is a possibility that money will be expended for the project during FY11. The goal is to have the construction done as soon as possible.
Neuzil asked if Phase II of the Dubuque Street Recreational Trail project needs to be added to the list. Stutsman commented that Phase II is mentioned at the bottom of the page. Parker said if stimulus funds are procured, this project and the rehabilitation of 520th Street will be added to the program for FY11.
Parker said the Five Year Road Construction Program modifications will be completed before the next Informal Meeting during which he meets with the Board. He thinks it may be best to wait until early March 2010, in anticipation of the stimulus bill, although it would normally be given to the Board sooner. He said the Five Year Road Construction Program needs to be approved by the Board and submitted to the IDOT on or before tax day, which is April 15, 2010. There is a little bit of time remaining.
Rettig said the County has now applied for State of Iowa Recreational Trails, Federal Recreational Trails, and Transportation Enhancement for three years straight and lost out on all nine grants because the trail is not cool enough, however, it will be used by more people in one week than beautiful woodland trails are used in months. She said the County has been setting aside money every year, and there is now enough money to finish it. She asked why the County would not just finish it this year, even if the stimulus funds do not come through. It is very clear that the County is not going to get a grant for this project the normal way.
Neuzil said he thinks that is direction from the Board to Parker and not from Parker to the Board. Parker said if the Board tells him they would like it done and the funds are available to do it, it would be done regardless of whether stimulus funds are obtained. Parker said there are a couple of items to consider, however. One is that the project would probably not have been included in the upcoming construction season because there are not enough Secondary Roads employees to cover it with all of the other ongoing construction. In this case, because stimulus dollars are being used, he has to hire a consultant to do the construction management. That is an additional fee. He said if the construction program for the summer of 2010 was not as aggressive and the construction management for the project could have been handled internally, it probably would have been considered for the program. He said if the Board members want it done, that is okay, and a consultant will be hired to handle the construction management. Stutsman said she thinks it makes sense to wait for a determination regarding the stimulus funding before making any decisions regarding this project. Parker reiterated that it is a cost issue.
Rettig said the bid letting for the project will have to occur by May 15, 2010 if the stimulus funds are obtained. Parker said he last heard that the project has to be let within 90 days of President Obama signing the bill. Stutsman said he has not signed it yet. Parker agreed and said he thinks President Obama signed the bill during the third or fourth week of February in 2009. That would have resulted in a May bid letting deadline. However, within 30 days of the signing of the bill in February of 2009, the bid letting deadline was extended to July 2009. It was subsequently extended to November 2009. Parker said there are details that still need to be worked out.
Parker said work is being done with IDOT to see if it is possible to do a swap and not be required to let the project within the 90 day timeline. Parker said it would involve IDOT swapping their Federal funds for the County's stimulus funds, and IDOT would let the project. Parker said the only stipulation is that the project would have to be let within calendar year 2010. He said that is a little more feasible because it may allow for better staff management than Secondary Roads would have during the Summer of 2010. Parker said it is an idea that is still being juggled. If IDOT backs out of the swap proposal, the County will have to follow the stimulus guidelines for bid letting. If President Obama signs the stimulus bill in February, the deadline would probably be around May 15, 2010.
Neuzil said there has been speculation that some of the funding streams are not going to be signed or voted on until after November 2010, after the upcoming election, but before January 1, 2011. Stutsman said that would provide some breathing room. Parker asked if Neuzil thinks the delay will apply to the stimulus bill. Neuzil said there are essentially two pots of money, and political reasons regarding debt are involved. Stutsman responded that including the stimulus bill projects in the Five Year Road Project is what was approved during the JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board meeting on January 27, 2010, not ECICOG. She said it all depends on where the funding lands.
Parker agreed and said these projects are fund-dependent. If funds are received for the projects, work will be done within the guidelines provided. If the funds are not approved, the Board obviously has the option of adding the project and telling him to get it done. A future construction schedule or deadline for bid letting could also be considered.
Stutsman remarked that it looks like Secondary Roads is going to be busy. Parker replied that it will be another busy construction year for Secondary Roads. He said there are a lot of variables that can change any of the timeframes for the projects, however. The first year of any Five Year Road Construction Program is generally loaded up relatively heavily with the understanding that some projects are not going to be let or will not be completed for various reasons. For example, a delay could be related to environmental clearances, funding, or right-of-way acquisition. If a project is put in the program for FY11, it is not hard to delay it to a subsequent fiscal year to get it funded. It is more difficult to move projects up from a subsequent year and even harder to put them on the Five Year Road Construction Program if they are not already included.
Parker said Secondary Roads employees have tried to follow this format, although stimulus funding has kind of thrown this conventional planning activity to the side. Now, money that was not initially planned to be spent on projects, is being spent on projects, and that will put any budget into a little bit of a bind. Neuzil said it has basically resulted in taking some dollars and going into the red. However, it is known that the money will be paid back; it is just a matter of when. By doing it this way, the County is at least eligible for stimulus dollars. If a decision was made not to do it this way, money sitting on the table would be passed up. He thinks all of them have decided that would be a silly thing to do. He said it is worth going into the red to be eligible to receive the extra money and to complete the extra projects.
Parker agreed and said there is a spreadsheet on the Iowa County Engineers Association Service Bureau (ICEASB) website that indicates there are a lot of counties that are not as over-obligated as Johnson County is currently, but there are still a lot of counties that are over-obligated from a Farm-to-Market Fund standpoint. He said it can be a little confusing. An obligation means that all of the funds to pay for the construction project are coming out of that fund source. However, it does not add back in the fact that stimulus funds, Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, or Bridge Replacement (BR) funds will be received once the project is complete.
Stutsman asked if Parker is ready to move on to the draft FY12 Five Year Road Construction Program. Parker said FY12-A in the Rehabilitation Projects section is the 520th Street Pavement Rehabilitation with Paved Shoulders project from Utah Avenue SE to the Johnson County/Muscatine County line. He remarked that this project was discussed earlier in the meeting. He reiterated that if the County does get stimulus funds, the first mile of 520th Street, from Utah Avenue SE to Wapsi Avenue SE, will be done separately from the rest of the project. The first mile would then be included in the FY11 program. He noted that the rest of the project, approximately three miles, would probably remain in the plan for FY12.
Parker continued with FY12 Bridges and Culverts. The project listed is labeled FY12-B and titled Bridge Replacement on 520th Street. He directed the Board to look at the Johnson County 5 Year Construction Program 2011 to 2015 map that was provided. He said it is the last bridge on 520th Street. He said Secondary Roads employees would plan on doing the bid letting for the Bridge Replacement at the same time as that for FY12-A.
Parker moved on to the FY13 portion of the Five Year Road Construction Program. He said FY13A, in the Grade and Pave Projects section, is the Herbert Hoover Highway Grading and Paving Phase I. The project would cover Herbert Hoover Highway from Interstate 80 to the SE corner of Section 3, Township 79, Range 5. He directed the Board to review the map and notice the color differential for the highlighted portion of Herbert Hoover Highway. He said it almost breaks the project in half. He clarified that FY13-A involves the red area on the map, and the next project involves the pink portion.
Neuzil said he would like more information about this project. He knows it is a priority based on some safety standards and things of that nature, but a lot of roads are. He is unsure why this project is bumped up as a priority before some of those scheduled for later years. Harney agreed and added that by looking at the ADT in comparison to that of other roads, he is not sure if Herbert Hoover Highway should be the County's priority. Stutsman said she would almost prefer to bump up the reconstruction of IWV Road. Neuzil suggested bumping up Mehaffey Bridge Road. Harney stated that the Mehaffey Bridge Road ADT is not as high as that of Herbert Hoover Highway.
Neuzil said he knows some safety issues are involved, but he is considering the surfaces of the roads. The surface of the Herbert Hoover Highway is very good, but the geography is not. He said he needs a little more convincing to keep that project where it is versus bumping up Mehaffey Bridge Road or IWV Road. Neuzil indicated he may be convinced if there are different funding formulas that may be available for Herbert Hoover Highway since the issues are safety-related rather than surface-related.
Parker said all of the above. Safety funds could be pursued because of the fatalities that have occurred on Herbert Hoover Highway. He said he knows there has been some discussion regarding the surface of the road as well. Prior to the transfer of jurisdiction from the State to the County, the State used it as a haul route while some interstate work was being done. Although the surface looks good, it would probably look just like IWV Road, if not worse, if the State had not put a two or three inch overlay on it. He was told that a County employee asked the State not to do it because it gives the impression that the road is in good shape, and people may not see the need to fix it. Parker said that Herbert Hoover Highway is in the plan due to some serious safety deficiencies. There have been several fatalities on the road, and accidents unfortunately continue to occur. The sight distance is very bad. Secondary Roads employees think it is an important project to do from a safety standpoint. Parker said there may be other projects that are more warranted from a surface standpoint; however, the same safety issues do not exist on those roads. He said safety funds would be applied for, as is done for any other project for which they are available.
Neuzil said he thinks the Board needs to decide starting in FY11. Harney remarked that the Board needs to decide before design work has begun. Sullivan said he could be wrong, but he seems to recall some accident data presented a few years back that showed Sharon Center Road as having the most accidents. Stutsman remarked that there was one fatality on Sharon Center Road. Sullivan said he thought it had the most accidents total, but he could be wrong. He said if an argument is made that a road is going to be on the plan because of its accident rate, the rankings should be considered. Miller said his recollection is that Sullivan is correct, but it involves the accident rate rather than the total number of accidents. Since the ADT on Sharon Center Road is lower, it does not necessarily mean that there have been more accidents. He acknowledged that both Sharon Center Road and Herbert Hoover Highway rank high for accident rates in the County.
Rettig asked if Miller has an accident rate chart. Miller replied that he can get one because the IDOT provides them for certain periods of time. Stutsman remarked that there was previously a whole set of criteria used to objectively look at roads and rank their priority, although it has not been used for a number of years. Miller said accident rate was one of the criteria used. Rettig asked if a scoring system was utilized. Neuzil said yes. Rettig said that makes sense. Neuzil said there was a chart, a matrix, and a scoring system that the Board stopped using after the end of 2001.
Miller said Herbert Hoover Highway belonged to the State when they did what they did. It wasn’t that employees from Secondary Roads called the State to ask them not to do it, but they were surprised when it was done because the State would never allow the County to do so without upgrading the road. He said the road was torn up as a result of the traffic put on it, and the asphalt overlay was seen as maintenance. Miller said drivers look at the road surface and assume it is a road that a vehicle can travel 65 miles per hour on, but it is not designed that way.
Stutsman asked if the Board should make a decision or leave the project on for FY13 for now. Miller said he would like to add another point for the Board to consider. He said safety funds can be applied for, but he thinks one of the issues with safety funds is that a resolution must be passed that the road will be built within the next two years. He said the Board members should be sure they want to proceed with the project before the funds are applied for. Miller said he thinks Neuzil is right that FY11 is critical for making a decision. Neuzil said the availability of a new funding source that is eligible and accessible is the pivotal point for him and indicates that a project needs to be done. Miller said up to $500,000 in safety funds can be obtained per project.
Sullivan said the Board has talked about trying to take emotion out of issues and making decisions based on data. However, data always leads them to Sandy Beach Road and Sharon Center Road, and no one wants to touch those projects with a ten-foot pole. Stutsman recalled that data analysis entered into the Board's decision regarding Newport Road, but everyone questioned the data and the numbers anyway. Sullivan said it is still interesting to see what the numbers show.
Harney said he thinks the Board has to weigh those notions, but the Board also needs to take a look at available funding. He reminded the Board where the County would be without the availability of stimulus funds. He stated that stimulus funds move the County forward on projects, even if the projects are not necessarily the ones they want to complete right now. They are projects that were planned for the future, and he asked why they shouldn’t take advantage of funding if it is available. He thinks Miller is right in asserting that the availability of safety funds means the project needs to be considered by the Board.
Stutsman said it is frustrating to know that a driver can see the interstate while traveling down these roads and yet the traffic count is still so high. Harney said Herbert Hoover Highway is the same way. Stutsman said that is what she is saying.
Parker said FY13-B is the 520th Street Pavement Rehabilitation and Paved Shoulders project. The section of 520th Street delineated for improvements is from the Hills City limits east to Utah Avenue. This is the western section of 520th Street, designated to be completed second, and it is colored in light green on the map. He remarked that it is nice to be back working on County projects. Neuzil said fixing State roads basically stole ten years of County projects. Stutsman said she can see where IDOT was coming from, however. The State had too many roads, and IDOT has limited dollars as well so they want to put that money into the interstates. Sullivan said it makes sense that they are now County roads, but the State should have fixed them before they gave them to the County. Harney added that the State could also have given the County more money to fix the roads.
Rettig said she has a question about the 520th Street project. She said it appears that the ADT associated with the west section of 520th Street is higher than the ADT of the east section. She asked why the projects are being pursued in reverse order and if it has to do with the structure of the pavement. Parker replied that the condition of the road is probably the main reason why the rehabilitations are timed this way. He said a lot of time is being spent on maintenance for the one mile section between Utah Avenue SE and Wapsi Avenue SE. It is coming apart, and some full depth replacements will have to be done on it. That is why the cost of this mile is higher than that of a normal mile. He acknowledged that the ADTs are less for the last three miles east of Wapsi, but that section is deteriorating at a faster rate than what is encountered in the Hills section. It was felt that the portion of 520th Street east of Hills could probably hold out for another year or two before replacement. He said the order can be reversed, however. Rettig said no, the reasoning Parker gave her is a good enough argument for her. She added that she has ridden her bike in the area and would agree. Stutsman agreed with Rettig and said she drove on it recently.
Parker said FY13-C is the Bridge Replacement on Cosgrove Road. He said there was some discussion on the structure inventory and analysis sheet from an inspections standpoint, which is done every two years. Sullivan asked about the meaning of SI&A. Parker said it refers to structure inventory and analysis. He informed the Board that, as part of the bridge inspection function, Secondary Roads is required to do biannual inspections of every structure that is 20 feet or greater. Some bridges are going to be inspected more than every two years, but none can go longer than two years without an inspection. He said there was something on the structure inventory and analysis spreadsheet that had referenced Secondary Roads to put this bridge in the Five Year Road Construction Program for replacement. Some checking has had to be done, however. He reported that all of the bridges are inspected by a consultant. It is the same consultant that designed the new Mehaffey Bridge for the County.
Parker moved on to the FY14 projects listed in the Five Year Road Construction Program under the Grade and Pave Projects heading. He said FY14-A is Phase II of the Herbert Hoover Highway Grading and Paving project. He reminded the Board that this is the extension and continuation of the Herbert Hoover Highway Grading and Paving project Phase I. It would involve finishing out the rest of the project to the Johnson County/Cedar County line. If he remembers correctly, he thinks the pavement east of the County line is in decent shape, but Secondary Roads employees will work with the adjoining county and/or city to see if they would like to complete the project jointly, as is commonly done.
Parker continued with FY14-B, which is the IWV Road Reconstruction from the city limits of Iowa City west to Ivy Avenue. This project would entail a complete re-grading and reconstruction of the road, similar to what was done with Sand Road. He reiterated that these are County projects.
Parker continued with FY14-C, which is the Mehaffey Bridge Road Pavement Rehabilitation and Paved Shoulders project from the North Liberty city limits to Sugar Bottom Road and is outlined under the heading Rehabilitation Projects. He reported that it is hoped that the project can be completed at the same time as the Mehaffey Bridge Road Recreation Trail, which is labeled FY14-F in the Five Year Road Construction Program. Depending on what happens with the funding for the bridge, that fund source could be used for this construction as well. Those funds could alternatively be used for the bridge, in which case a different fund source would need to be utilized to pay for this project.
Sullivan asked if North Liberty has a need to rehabilitate the portion of Mehaffey Bridge Road north of Penn Street that is within their city limits. He asked if it would be a combined effort. Parker said Secondary Roads employees will certainly contact the City of North Liberty, although the project is several years out. He said the City of North Liberty recently received a Federal grant to complete construction of a trail from the South Slope Cooperative parcel down to Phase II of the North Dubuque Street Trail. Neuzil added that the Federal grant is contingent on the City of North Liberty being able to come up with a couple hundred thousand dollars of city money. Parker said okay. He thinks it was just approved this last year. Sullivan said the City of North Liberty continues to go north, and maybe they will annex some of this by that time. Parker said it is always hoped that more of the dollars can be passed on to the cities that annex. Harney commented that the City of North Liberty's priority is Highway 965 right now.
Neuzil said it seems to him that Mehaffey Bridge Road should be rehabilitated before some of these other roads. Harney said he thinks obtaining funding for the bridge would free up some of the money that was set aside for the bridge. The money could then be used to finish Mehaffey Bridge Road. Parker told the Board to keep in mind that they have not yet discussed the recreational trail project related to Mehaffey Bridge Road, FY14-F, which is also projected to be completed in FY14. He said Secondary Roads has been awarded Transportation Enhancement funds for the separated trail, but cannot tap into those funds until 2014. He said the construction timeframes can certainly be done differently, but the impression last year was that they should be done at the same time.
Rettig said she thought the funds could be used in 2013 but that Secondary Roads was going to be allowed to carry them over to 2014. Parker agreed. He said Secondary Roads was awarded $120,000 for 2013 and was just awarded another $120,000 for 2014. He said Secondary Roads would move $120,000 into 2014. It would be okay with the fund source because of the four year Federal breakdown. Rettig asked if the funding for the project is up to $240,000. Parker said correct and that additional funds will be sought from that fund source. Per the tax conversation regarding the project, if another governmental entity that has been awarded Transportation Enhancement Funds out of that fund source cannot get their project done, Johnson County would be considered to receive additional funds for the project out of that fund source. Neuzil asked what the fund source is. Parker replied that it is the ECICOG Transportation Enhancement Funds. He said ECICOG Transportation Director Mary Rump is the contact for that fund source.
Parker reiterated that the Mehaffey Bridge Road Rehabilitation project and the Mehaffey Bridge Road Recreational Trail project are running hand in hand, but separating the two projects is an option if that is the Board’s preference. Neuzil stated that part of making the investment in Mehaffey Bridge is the potential to have a separated part of the bridge for bicycle access and recreation. He noted that many bicyclists are hesitant to use Mehaffey Bridge Road because there is no room for bikes. He said that this Five Year Road Construction Program means there would be another two or three years that the bridge is beautiful, but a lot of people would potentially not be able to use the million dollar investment. Parker said it is a downfall, but the current structure is very narrow. Completing the bridge would allow people to use the trail section to cross over the reservoir. He said he is hopeful that Federal funds can be procured to get that completed. Neuzil said his point is that more bicyclists are going to utilize the route, and that is probably not desirable when there are over 3,400 cars using it per day. Parker said he understands.
Parker said FY14-D is the Ely Road Pavement Rehabilitation and Paved Shoulders project from Highway 382 to the Johnson County/Linn County boundary line. He reported that he has had communication with Linn County about this joint project already. Linn County is waiting for this project so it can be continued into Linn County to the south side of the City of Ely. He said it would be a joint project. Parker said FY14-E is the 180th Street Pavement Rehabilitation project from the east city limits of the City of Solon east to the Utah Avenue intersection.
Parker revisited FY14, which is the Mehaffey Bridge Road Recreational Trail Project. He said $240,000 has already been awarded to assist with the construction. Unfortunately, the County cannot tap into those funds until 2014. Neuzil asked if a section of the trail could be done earlier. Parker said yes, it could be done in phases, although it is something that hasn’t been discussed. It would then be similar to what was done with the Dubuque Street Trail. Harney said the Dubuque Street Trail is a project that was frustrating in regards to ECICOG funds. He said that a couple years ago, money was promised to Johnson County when the County transferred money from trails in the County. Then Ely applied for part of the funds, and they were split between Ely and the County. The County had been counting on $240,000 and only got half. Stutsman said that is part of the process.
Parker continued with the FY15 portion of the Five Year Road Construction Program. He said FY15-A, under the heading Grade and Pave Projects, is the continuation or extension of IWV Road from the Cosgrove Road intersection with IWV Road to where the new pavement would be on Ivy Avenue. The project could be called Phase II.
Parker moved on to FY15-B, which is the Highway 965 Pavement Rehabilitation and Paved Shoulders project. He said the County would be working on this project with North Liberty from their city limits north to Meadow Road. That is what Secondary Roads recommends for the next Five Year Road Program. Sullivan asked if IWV Road will have the design involving six-feet-wide paved shoulders. Parker said paved shoulders will be added to any project that is done out there, as was instructed by the Board. Stutsman asked where the paved shoulders would be put. Parker stated that the County would be purchasing a lot of right-of-way to complete the task. Sullivan added that a lot of fill would have to be purchased.
Harney said he noticed Parker took a project off the Five Year Road Construction Program. There was a petition with numerous names on it, and the project was on the program schedule. He said the County pretty much promised to fix Lower Old Highway 6 so the Board is probably going to hear from those folks. Stutsman recalled that Parker said the Lower Old Highway 6 project could be postponed for a couple of years. Parker said he thinks it was due to be done in FY10 and asked Miller if that is correct. Miller said that sounds right. Parker said the project was listed under FY10. However, the amount of traffic was considered, and it was decided that there were other priorities that needed to be completed immediately, from a financial standpoint.
Parker said he would like to see a double chip seal coat done on Lower Old Highway 6, which may buy two to five years’ time. This would delay the rehabilitation of Lower Old Highway 6 long enough for the fund source to be replenished, and then it would be put back in the Five Year Road Construction Program. He said the Three Year Design Guidelines require the road to be widened. In order to do that, the utility company was going to have to move the gas line at a cost of $1.5 million. He said that cost was not necessarily a determining factor for Secondary Roads to remove the project from the Five Year Road Construction Program; however, it is a cost that is factored in. Parker said the utility company asked if the project had to be done this year. He wishes the County had the money to complete this road rehabilitation, but there are other obligations. Sullivan said he is glad that decision was made. He said it has only 100 cars a day, and some chip seal can be put on it. Harney remarked that Lower Old Highway 6 needs some attention of some sort, especially since there are Secondary Roads trucks on it. Stutsman said it will get some attention.
Sullivan said people came in and complained about Highway 965 before the County fixed it. It was difficult to argue with them. Highway 965 was a road with tons of traffic going 65 miles per hour, and thousands of people living by it. He agreed that Highway 965 needed to be done, but would argue that Lower Old Highway 6 is not as big of a priority. Stutsman said she thinks a smooth surface will result from this. Neuzil said it would be a seal. Parker said it would be very similar to a seal coat. The benefit is that the surface will be sealed to minimize the future intrusion of water. The downside is the possibility of something tracking up when driving on it during a very hot summer because little rocks will pull up. Once it gets seated in; however, that activity should be minimized.
Sullivan said when the State built the new Highway 6, they made Lower Old Highway 6 a fairly unimportant local route. It could be gravel if it had not already been paved. Parker said the County has gravel roads that endure a lot more traffic than Lower Old Highway 6. Stutsman said maybe the County would be better off to rip it up and turn it back into a gravel road. Sullivan indicated that would not go over well. Rettig said it would cost some money.
Neuzil said one of the uneasy issues is that the project reached this point, and the County is now sort of back pedaling on what they had intended to do. Stutsman remarked that is what the Five Year Road Plan process is all about. Neuzil agreed and said it has certainly been done before. Educating residents about the change is probably one of the things the Board needs to do. He said that since the Five Year Road Construction Program covers five years, maybe Secondary Roads should add the project back to the list for FY15 if the intention is to readdress it in four or five years. That might be a better way of approaching it. Parker said that can certainly be done. Neuzil said that would be if Parker thinks it will only be four or five years. Parker said he can always hope for more years, and it might be possible to extend it six or seven years. His plan is to do the chip seal and evaluate it after the first year to see how it is holding up. If it seems as though the chip seal treatment is not working as long as hoped, then it would be reevaluated and brought back into the Five Year Road Construction Program in the future. Neuzil said he is guessing that the section from the mobile home park to Kent Park is the most traveled portion, and maybe there is some compromise there. Parker agreed and said that section of the road gets over 300 vehicles a day going west and north. The number of 100 vehicles per day refers to vehicles traveling towards the County’s new shed in the area. Neuzil said it is the other way around. Parker asked if he has it backwards. Neuzil said yes.
Harney asked if Parker is considering a chip seal surface treatment or asphalt. Parker said a chip seal or seal coat-type surface would be considered. Some minor patching may have to be done first to eliminate problems with the steel. He said it will be evaluated, and hopefully some of those functions can be incorporated into the 2010 summer schedule. Harney asked when the surface will be done. Parker reiterated that the goal would be to get it done during the summer of 2010. Stutsman asked if it would just involve maintenance activities. Parker confirmed that this task would be considered part of maintenance activities but not a part of the Five Year Road Construction Program.
Stutsman said the only drawback to including it on the Five Year Road Construction Program is that the public will see that it is included and come in year after year to ask where the project has moved. She is almost inclined to do the maintenance activities on Lower Old Highway 6 and subsequently reevaluate it and consider putting it back in the Five Year Road Construction Program. Neuzil concluded that Parker should put the project back into the Five Year Road Construction Program if he thinks the project would be done in four years or less, but it should be left out if Parker wants to reevaluate it after a year. Parker said he thinks he would like to reevaluate it after a year. If the surface is not holding up to expectations after a full summer, the project would be readdressed and possibly moved forward. Alternatively, it may be decided that the project can be delayed another year.
Stutsman asked Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak if he has anything to add. Dvorak said his only concern was expansion of a facility. He said a transportation study was done by the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG), and expansion of the Scales Point Marina facility is now expected to be done during 2010. If the expansion happens, there may be some pressure on Scales Bend Road starting in 2011. He does not foresee it being a major problem, however. He commented that Scales Point marina and Bobbers Grill pretty much ran Mid River out of business. Houseboats and pontoons are starting to move down to Scales Point Marina, so Scales Point needs to expand more and more. Harney recalled that a couple of years ago, Dvorak’s recommendations were Sandy Beach Road, Scales Bend Road, and 540th Street, which is also known as Cheese Factory Road.
Stutsman asked about the process if no changes are made. She asked Parker if the Five Year Road Construction Program will be put on the Board's agenda for a public hearing. Parker said the Five Year Road Construction Program draft document and map will be posted on the County website to allow the public to view them for a couple of weeks, as has been done in the past. Another work session could be held at the Board's request, although it doesn’t sound like there is anything controversial in the plan. Stutsman asked Parker if the Five Year Road Construction Program needs to be submitted to the State by April 15, 2010. Parker confirmed that it needs to be approved by the Board and submitted to the State on or before tax day, which is April 15, 2010.
Parker suggested having another Informal Meeting with the Board in March due to the fact that there are stimulus projects on the draft Five Year Road Construction Program. Based on comments made during the informal meeting in March, he would probably wait two weeks before bringing the program back as a formal agenda item for the Board's consideration for approval. Stutsman asked if a public hearing needs to be held or if only Board approval is required. Parker indicated that only Board approval is necessary.
Harney asked if a process will be in place in case the County does not receive stimulus funding. He asked if Parker would change his priorities. Parker replied that this unknown is one of the reasons he is postponing the informal meeting until March. If anything is going to happen, he thinks he will know by the end of February. He explained that if the County does get the stimulus funds, the Five Year Road Construction Program will be modified, as discussed during this meeting. If the County does not get the stimulus funds, projects slated for stimulus funds will only be included upon the Board's request. That is a discussion that can occur during the March informal meeting or prior to that time. Sullivan said the Board has night meetings the second Thursday of every month, and he thinks the Five Year Road Construction Program is a good item to include in a night meeting. Stutsman reiterated that no public hearing is required for the Five Year Road Construction Program. Sullivan asked if they will have one. Stutsman said she just means it will not be published. She was not referring to public input and discussion. Parker confirmed that a public hearing is not required. He said, in the past, the process has been to have two work session sessions, one informal meeting, and one formal meeting regarding the Five Year Road Construction Program. He said for the last two years, it has consisted of one work session, one informal meeting and one formal meeting.
Sullivan suggested that Parker present the revised Five Year Road Construction Program to the Board at the Informal Board Meeting on March 11, 2010. He explained that if the presentation occurs at that time, there would still be a couple of weeks to make changes, if necessary. Then the Board could have a final vote, and Parker could still turn in the Five Year Road Construction Program a week or so before the deadline. If Parker were to wait until the Informal Board Meeting scheduled for April 8, 2010, there would not be much time to make changes. Harney said March 11, 2010 is the date scheduled for the Board to vote on the formal adoption of the FY11 Budget. Stutsman and Neuzil both indicated that they think the date will still work. Parker said the presentation can be shifted to another day if the March 11, 2010 Informal Meeting agenda becomes too full. Sullivan commented that it would be nice for the public to be able to attend the meeting and to have some time between the meeting and the State’s April deadline.
Neuzil said he would still like the Dubuque Street Recreational Trail Phase II project included in the Five Year Road Construction Program, even if information regarding certain things has not yet been obtained. He said Parker wrote a note that it was dependent on the approval of the Federal funding application. Neuzil would rather play it safe by including the project in the program. Sullivan explained that it would provide the flexibility to be able to do the project if the money is available. Parker said it would not be any problem to add the project to the draft Five Year Road Construction Program. Harney said he thinks it needs to be listed like all the other projects. Stutsman said it sounds like there are at least three Board members that would like it included. Sullivan said he would rather it be included with the understanding that it won’t be done if the money is unavailable. Parker said it will be added to the draft Five Year Road Construction Program, and the document will be posted on the County website. Preparations will be made for it to be included as part of the Five Year Road Construction Program for his next meeting with the Board.
Greg Pickett said he and Parker have been communicating by email regarding Farm-to-Market funds. He stated that Johnson County is currently in debt to the State by about $3.5 million for Farm-to-Market funds. That is according to the quarterly report that was last submitted. He thinks a lot of those issues have been discussed at this meeting. He said Neuzil mentioned that the Board understands that the County will go into the hole with Farm-to-Market funds in order to obtain stimulus funding. Pickett said the projects are not fully paid for when the County gets stimulus funds from the government, and the difference is being passed onto local tax payers.
Pickett said the current amount set aside is $1.5 million a year for local funds or maybe more in FY10. There needs to be a mechanism in place to ensure the County is never exceeding $1.5 million. He explained that the County is going to have to pay back the State eventually. He thinks it would be a good idea for Neuzil and Harney to bring up the issue when they attend the Chamber Trip in Washington D.C. He is sure having to raise local taxes in order to kick in local contributions for stimulus projects was not the idea of the stimulus program. He foresees local taxpayers having to make up for the funding gap.
Pickett said it can be compared to the government telling him they are going to give him a new house and giving him the plans but requiring him to buy the lot and prepare the foundation first. He said if the County is going to accept stimulus money, the Federal government needs to try to fully fund the projects and not put the County in a hole. Otherwise, a difficult decision has to be made to possibly reject some of the funds. He acknowledged that no one wants to reject free funds, but people want to ensure the County is not getting in a hole. He said that is why he was asking for bottom line numbers.
Sullivan acknowledged that the potential for stimulus funding affected the Five Year Road Construction Program. For example, the Oak Crest Hill Road project was actually moved up because of the funds. There was always an intention to do it; however, the project was expedited. He said it will be moved up two years if that is all it takes to get Federal money. Taxpayers would have had to pay for it two years down the road anyhow. Pickett said that would be two years down the road, and he is just saying that the County is sitting with a balance of $4.5 million owed to the State. He said the question is whether the County is going to get a full $4.5 million back from the Federal government for doing this, and the answer is no.
Parker said Pickett is referencing a quarterly statement from IDOT. He said the County uses the quarterly report to make sure IDOT has refunded their projects as they are supposed to do. It is also used to ensure that the funds the County is supposed to get from the Farm-to-Market Fund are actually deposited in the County's Farm-to-Market Fund at the correct rate and amount. Parker said the quarterly report does show that the County is $4.495 million obligated, which means that money is obligated to construction projects that are either ongoing or have been let and will be constructed. He explained that the whole project construction fund is coming out of this fund source. He said to remember, as mentioned earlier, that the County is going to be reimbursed for some of those funds. For example, $2 million of the 120th Street Pavement Replacement and Highway 965 Pavement Rehabilitation joint project with the City of Cedar Rapids is obligated out of the Farm-to-Market fund source, but reimbursement will be received for the City of Cedar Rapids' portion of the money, as well as $560,000 in stimulus funds. Parker said the obligation does not account for that.
Pickett said he thinks the point is that Neuzil and Harney should let legislators know that if the Federal government wants to give stimulus money to the County, they need to fully fund the projects. He doesn’t think the intent was ever to pass the buck down to local governments. He remarked that the stimulus bill is not supposed to be like the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Neuzil said there are two funding formulas, one in the appropriations, one in the new funding for roads, and then there are the stimulus dollars. Most of the stimulus dollars have already gone through the State and been divided up. He said the dollars that the County is going after will be more through certain Federal opportunities that some legislators have some ability to get their hands on. Harney added that some of the stimulus dollars are intended for job stimulation within communities. Pickett agreed that they are intended for construction jobs and said it is a good idea, but the projects need to be fully rather than partially funded. Pickett said rehabilitation project FY12-A involves a disparity between the $2.4 million total cost of the project and the $1.2 million of stimulus funding. He thinks there needs to be a mechanism to know the amount of local funding debt. Sullivan said the point is well-taken.
Stutsman said Parker talked about the State freezing Farm-to-Market funds. She asked if that kind of acts as a stop gap to keep the County from getting too far into debt. Parker said yes. He said the negative obligations in the County's Farm-to-Market Fund are, quite frankly, caused by the stimulus projects. Typically, Secondary Roads tries to keep a level number for that fund source but hasn’t been able to do so in this case. For any projects the County lets in the future, guidelines are required to be met. He explained that a form must be submitted to IDOT to show that the County is obligated for a certain dollar amount, but that funds will be reimbursed from a number of Federal projects. Even though the County has obligated this amount, it really is not that bad because the funds are coming back. The quarterly document from the IDOT does not show that. Parker said if the County applies to utilize Farm-to Market funds for projects in the future and the fund source is frozen, justification has to be made that the projects can be done based on certain criteria. Otherwise, the County will be told that Farm-to-Market funds cannot be utilized until the balance is up to where the State says it needs to be. Rettig thanked both Parker and Pickett for their input.
Adjourned at 2:48 p.m.
By: Angela McConville, Recording Secretary