Monday, November 24, 2008

PTV Meeting Notes 11/22/2008 and Property Taxes

It was a great meeting and we had about 40 - whoops - 25 in attendance. See notes below.

Property Taxes - The automatic increase has been sent out by the county. The county has confirmed the property values in PVT have dropped substantially and are promising to adjust them hopefully starting in December. More details to follow.

Highlights of Parkview Terrace neighborhood meeting of Saturday, November 22, 2008, in Coralville Public Library downstairs meeting room—a lovely venue!

The meeting lasted from 3:40 to 5:45, with about 25 people in attendance. The two main topics were flood assistance funds, with information provided by Jerry Anthony, and flood mitigation planning, with information from Africa Espina. People also talked about communication and coordination needs.

Early on, a question was raised: Do differing interests of those hoping for a buyout and those rebuilding and planning to stay in the neighborhood necessitate separate conversations?

Responses: Some say we need to stick together and work together regardless. Others say those awaiting buyout don’t yet have any guarantee that will happen. (Some people still wonder.)

There was a bit of discussion about a need for better communications between residents and Iowa City government, since people tend to hear things second- and third-hand, leading to miscommunication and wasted time for everyone. The city has agreed to provide PVT residents with regular weekly updates about funds and other issues.

(1) Flood assistance funds: Jerry Anthony—a UI faculty member in urban and regional planning, who has served on and chaired the IC Community Development Committee that gives out housing rehabilitation grants, and also is on the housing task force of the state Rebuild Iowa Commission—gave an overview of what he knows about city/state/federal funds and disbursement.

First, Jumpstart—it’s entirely state funds intended to provide immediate relief after floods; the governor’s office set the guidelines, including not imposing income limits and providing households with help to the maximum extent possible, rather than divvying up the money and spreading it around further. The state has an odd explanation of this system—making the analogy of providing a disabled car with four wheels rather than just one (which everyone agrees is a ridiculous comparison, but oh well).

As for criteria for rating applicants – the city has been using a weighting system (accounting for elderly, disabled, family size and single head of household) that worked for other programs in the past. Alternatives other communities have proposed are no better—a lottery system has been ruled illegal, and first-come first-served is legal but also would prompt complaints. The main problem is not in the allocation system, but in the lack of discussion ahead of time—as indeed there is no good alternative. These grants do subtract for FEMA and insurance money (secretary’s note: one of my neighbors with top priority got all of $10 K).

Next, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which is federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) money, under a program that has been around since 1974. Under this longstanding program, IC has always been an “entitlement community,” meaning it gets allocations automatically and the city itself administers the program with fewer strings attached than for non-entitlement communities.

On top of regular funding there is a special disaster allocation via the state, which to date has been imposing requirements that ordinarily don’t apply to an entitlement community: (a) requirement for lead-based paint abatement in structures built prior to 1978, which adds considerable time and expense; (b) requirement that rehabilitated housing be brought up to code, with advance evidence of availability of extra money to do so; and (c) state’s desire to monitor against “double-dipping,” i.e., making sure that money from different sources, including FEMA, Jumpstart and insurance, isn’t duplicated. The city is asking for a flood-related emergency exemption from (a); and for authority to monitor (b) and (c) at the local level on the basis of its longstanding entitlement status and good record managing funds under this program.

CDBG money is targeted at lower-income households, with the regular guideline for eligibility set at 80% of the median income for the area (so the actual amount will vary depending on area). For the post-flood grants, the state is raising the limit to 100%, and there’s talk of an additional round of disaster-related allocations that would raise it further to 110% in order to help more households—perhaps another 20 or 30 families.

Both Jumpstart and CDBG grants carry a “declining balance loan” condition—meaning that the amount is forgiven in increments over either 5 or 10 years, after which it zeros out. The payback period for these allocations has been set at 10 years; people wondered whether it could be set at 5—another question.

A third funding sources is the Community Foundation of Johnson County, funded by private businesses; a recent call for extra flood contributions collected $50,000 in just a week. That amount has been made available to the city for rental and mortgage assistance for those rebuilding and returning, and letters allocating that money have gone out to 16 people. The foundation likely will be raising more.

There should be additional disaster assistance money coming from the federal government, with a couple of bills yet to be finalized—including a multi-billion-dollar bill yet to be signed by President Bush that will make $35 million for flood recovery available locally (secretary’s aside—the president signed a $700-billion Wall Street bailout bill with such alacrity, yet a common-citizen relief package sits around...? jeesh).

(2) Flood mitigation measures: Jerry Anthony first noted that unlike Coralville or Cedar Rapids governments, which tend to move faster, Iowa City’s mode is more consultative and defers to residents’ preferences—so it is in PVT folks’ interests to develop a vision for the neighborhood and present it as a group in the next few weeks. He listed the following types of mitigation options: (a) engineering and construction measures; (b) physical land/use, zoning and planning measures; (c) economic measures, i.e., incentives and disincentives, such as a storm water drainage tax; (d) environmental and resource protection; (e) emergency services; (f) management and institutional measures. Given the property tax income the PVT neighborhood supplies, it’s obviously in the city’s best interests to protect against future flood damage, and the city council indeed has agreed to do something!

Africa Espina—UI-trained environmental engineer with hydrology expertise who works for Stanley Consultants—addressed the engineering and construction issues. There will be review of the current maps of the 100- and 500-year floodplain, which are based on past events and don’t account for climate change.

Meanwhile, the city is looking into three strategies for PVT flood mitigation—(a) buying out the eligible homes, along with elevating four remaining homes; (b) the buyout/elevation and improved access in the eventuality of a flood through road elevation, probably at the bends of Normandy where the pumps were placed; and (c) the buyout/elevation plus protection with an engineered option.

That engineered option might be an earthen levee—which requires lots of space and sounds unlikely; or fixed or demountable floodwalls. The demountable type requires preplaced concrete foundations, with space needed for those also and heavy truck access; and in case of anticipated flooding the city can bring in metal sheets and raise a temporary wall. The estimated cost for this type of solution is $11.8-15.5 million for 500-year flood protection for PVT, and some $27 million for Taft and PVT combined. Another idea is so-called “Hesco barriers”—blast barriers developed for Iraq that are essentially cardboard filled with gravel, and that have proved good for flood control.

The city is considering hiring a consultant to work with the neighborhood on developing plans, but that’s not decided yet. The city also has yet to formalize a position on the properties that are eligible but refuse buyout funds—it’s thought that 5 to 7 homeowners along the river want to stay, meaning complications for right-of-way and also the likelihood that they’d be left outside any flood protection barriers.

Doug Jones—computer science prof at UI, and author of ingenious and thoughtful concepts for flood protection presented earlier—noted two measures the city could take that would help protect PVT: raising North Dubuque Street, which would enable increased outflow from the Coralville Dam; and fixing the Park Road bridge so it wouldn’t became a debris trap.

Steve McGuire—UI professor of art coordinating studio arts move to old Menards store—discussed the need for a public forum to discuss coordination among Coralville, Iowa City, UI and the Army Corps of Engineers. Such a forum is supposed to be scheduled.

There was more talk about that coffer dam UI put in the river, including the allegation that it made a huge difference in flooding upstream—but note that this contradicts earlier calculations that it made a negligible difference (including that of Frank Weirich in our hydrology 101 tutorial).

However—a new twist: Sewer lines located under the river in the area of the coffer dam are in need of repair as a result of the flood, which scoured the channel and left the sewer crossings in mid-water rather than resting on the bottom. Doug Jones said three sewer lines below the coffee dam are affected, but only one of them is in danger of collapse because the other two are plugged and not in use. Steve McGuire reported that the university has said the coffer dam should be removed by next March. Others said the university needs to have a system to dismantle or destroy coffer dams in case of emergencies, which evidently was not possible with this one.

A suggestion—ask our Congressional delegation to provide a dedicated staff person for helping to coordinate among all parties as well as the feds.

No comments: