HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.28.18 UAPB Minutes1
MINUTES
MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board APPROVED
Wednesday, March 28th, 2018 – 4:30 PM
City of Coralville – Council Chambers
1512 7th Street, Coralville, IA
MEMBERS PRESENT: Coralville: Tom Gill, Meghann Foster
Iowa City: Susan Mims, Mazahir Salih, Pauline Taylor,
Rockne Cole, Kingsley Botchway II, John Thomas
Johnson County: Lisa Green-Douglass, Mike Carberry
North Liberty: Terry Donahue, Chris Hoffman
Tiffin: Steve Berner
University Heights: Louise From
University of Iowa: Jim Sayre
ICCSD: Lori Roetlin
STAFF PRESENT: Kent Ralston, Brad Neumann, Emily Bothell, Sarah Walz, Kelly
Brockway
OTHERS PRESENT: Stuart Anderson (Iowa DOT), Cathy Cutler (DOT District 6), Dan
Holderness (City of Coralville)
1. CALL TO ORDER
Berner called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
a. Recognize alternates
All members were present.
b. Consider approval of meeting minutes
Motion to approve was made by Donahue; Gill seconded. The motion was unanimously
approved.
c. Set date of next meeting
The next meeting was set for Wednesday, May 30th, hosted by Iowa City.
2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA*
No public comment was presented.
3. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
a. DOT staff presentation and consider action on whether to participate in the Federal-Aid-
Swap whereby State funding could replace Federal funding for local road/bridge projects
Ralston stated that for several months staff has been updating both the Transportation
Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) and the Board regarding the pending swap. It was
highly encouraged after the last meeting for members to have discussions with their
respective city staff to gain a stronger understanding of how the swap might affect their
respective entities. Unless the Board specifically chooses to opt-out of the swap program,
the MPO will automatically participating in the Federal-Aid-Swap.
2
Ralston introduced Stuart Anderson from the Iowa DOT (Director of Programing, Planning,
and Modal Division), to provide the Board with a presentation with an overview and to
answer questions about the swap.
a. Presentation
Anderson stated that many other states, Midwest included, have already implemented
Federal-Aid-Swap programs. The swap helps small local jurisdictions, with smaller
staffs, complete projects faster by minimizing the additional regulations and
requirements attached to Federal funding. The concept of the swap is to have the
same amount of federal funding exchanged for state funding at the DOT level. The
reduced project development requirements in this swap process can reduce the
project development cycle by at least six months for local projects.
Anderson addressed that in previous discussions others did express concern about
the swap bypassing federal aid requirements. The swap will not change the amount of
funding for projects nor the number of upcoming projects in the state of Iowa. Anderson
proceeded to open the floor to any questions of concerns from the Board members.
Douglass asked for clarification on which federal regulations the swap would
circumvent. Anderson mentioned State requirements would replace the federal
requirements. Anderson stressed the time savings component of the project
development process. Federal oversight requirements that would be replaced include
the review of material certification, Davis-Bacon, financial record oversite, and By-
American certification.
Salih asked for clarification of the employment requirements under swap projects.
Anderson stated while Davis-Bacon would not be required, that the leading process
would remain the same.
Carberry asked for more information regarding environmental review. Anderson
mentioned that most federal and state requirements apply to projects regardless the
funding source. The shift in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documentation process will allow other Federal organizations besides the DOT to take
the lead in documentation, such as the Core of Engineers. Otherwise environmental
review will not change.
Cole asked what the new wage standard the State will apply to projects, if the Davis-
Bacon is not applied. Cole also asked what the expectation for wages will be on these
swapped projects. Anderson stated that swap projects would have the same wage
requirements associated with state and local funding the current projects have. At this
time, there is not a prediction for an increase or decrease in future wages.
Donahue asked if the Board could set their own wage requirement. Anderson stated
that wages would defer to the local council requirements.
Gill expressed his concern about growth potential for Coralville and the potential that
wages could increase with the increased number of projects within the area.
Botchway II asked how many projects, statewide, would qualify for the swap within the
next year. Anderson stated that at this moment there could not be a definite answer
until the final programs from each RPA and MPO are summited. Typically, this MPO
averages one federal aid project a year. Ralston clarified that there has been at least
one project a year for the past 5 -10 years. A draft of the Transportation Improvement
Document (TIP), which programs all federal and state funding for projects within the
3
urbanized area, will be presented to the Board at the next meeting.
Taylor also expressed concerns about safety requirements, such as OSHA, and how
speeding up projects could bypass safety requirements on these projects. Anderson
stated that safety requirements have not been an expressed concern. OSHA and
jobsite requirements will still exist on all projects within the state, regardless of the
funding source. There are strict design standards and guidance for all projects that are
development.
Ralston clarified that the Board could not set their own prevailing wage requirement
for MPO projects within the area. This determination came from a supreme court case
with Polk County.
Douglass expressed concerns about missed classification and subcontractors
oversight when regulations are taken away. Anderson stated that most projects are
currently developed with state and city funding. The swap allows the county/city to
administer a federal project in this way. The DOT has not heard concerns of local
administration on state funded projects.
Carberry asked for a quantifiable number of savings the swap would save on federal
projects. Hoffman stated that staff would save time, which saves tax payer dollars. The
unemployment rate is very low in Johnson County and the State of Iowa, which helps
hold contractors accountable to complete projects by the expected deadline. Hoffman
asked if there is any evidence to show the difference in wage rates between what
would happen under Davis-Bacon and the current prevailing wage.
Salih asked Anderson how much time would be saved on the federal projects.
Anderson responded that the project development process has shortened by six
months for swapped projects.
Berner asked if there were any statistics on whether other MPOs or RPAs have opted-
in or opted-out. Anderson responded there the DOT does not have statistics for other
states; but in the 27 organizations in Iowa, this is the only MPO that discussing opting-
out.
Gill asked Anderson if the opting-in or -out process was annual. Anderson responded
that the swap process would be an annual renewal program for each organization.
The DOT is intending to quantify and track cost savings, benefits, and any issues of
the swap program.
Sayre asked for clarification in which every federal dollar that comes to the state, the
same amount will be subject to the Davis-Bacon act even if we do not participate in
the swap. Anderson responded with yes.
Ralston did clarify that all the other MPOs and RPAs in Iowa were planning on opting-
in to the swap program. The TTAC committee had unanimously recommended that
the Board participate in the swap.
Thomas stated the Davis-Bacon has been in place since 1931.
Berner asked if there were any public comment regards to this agenda item. There
were three public comments.
Bill Gilhart stated that without Davis-Bacon, the only other form of wage protection
workers have is minimum wage regulations. Contractors are also required to have a
certified payroll under Davis-Bacon that stops misclassification of workers and wage
4
theft. Gilhart presented the Board with two documents. The first of the prevailing wage
literature what is included in projects with Davis-Bacon. He stated that the fringe
benefits can be used only for health insurance, retirement, and training. The second
document included information pertaining to the results of states removing their
individual state Davis-Bacon laws.
Douglass asked Gilhart to further explain what misclassification means and how it
happens. Gilhart stated that misclassification is when a worker is titled as an
independent contractor and not an employee. The original contractor is not obligated
to pay social security, workers compensation, or unemployment.
Cole pointed out on page 3, from the second document from Gilhart, the fatality rate
and wage labor laws correlation. Cole asked Gilhart if his organization had any
numerical statistics for safety rates without the prevailing wage standard within Iowa.
Gilhart did not have a numerical prediction on safety implications of the swap in Iowa.
Eric Schmidt presented his support for the Board to opt-out of the swap process. The
swap is avoiding federal environmental regulations for secondary roads and bridges,
Davis-Bacon, and the By-American act.
Dale Ballsinger expressed his support for keeping Davis-Bacon and By-American
regulations for future projects within the area.
b. Board action
Berner closed public comment. Motion to opt-out of the Federal-Aid-Swap was made
by Carberry; Douglass seconded. Sayre accused himself from the vote.
From stated she supports the TTAC and University Heights’ staff recommendation and
for opting-in to the program.
Hoffman expressed his concern between the time savings for his city staff and the
consequences for removing the federal requirements.
Cole stated that there has not been any imperial data on the savings presented to the
Board about the swap, health and safety standards, or wage standards. While changes
to safety and lower wages might not be seen immediately, over time these built up
standards can become reduced. Also, the Board cannot set project wage agreements
or standards.
Botchway II expressed his support in opting-out for one year to see the data from the
rest of the state before we make the decision to join as well. While city staff stress the
time savings the swap would produce, there is typically only one eligible project a year.
Carberry stated his support in opting-out due to concerns of the safety and wages for
the construction workers. Carberry did mention that his county engineers and staff had
shown support for opting-in to the swap.
From and Berner expressed their support in opting-in to the swap for the benefits
smaller communities would experience. The swap would save significant time on
projects, reduce costs for city staff, and save tax payer dollars. Both communities’ city
staff supported opting-in to the swap as well.
Gill stated his support for opting-in due to the reduction in time for major projects, faster
completion, and minimizing the safety hazards for dangerous projects. The reduction
in time would significantly increase public safety on I-80, I-380, and HWY 965.
5
Taylor expressed concerns about expediting major projects and allowing them to be
under local and state regulations.
Cole asked Ralston if the MPO had an estimate of delay on projects if the Board
chooses to opt-out of the swap. Ralston stated that the MPO does not at this moment.
The TIP document is currently being drafted. However, any project that has already
been deemed federalized by the DOT, would not be eligible for the swap, like the
current I-80/I-380 project. But, the associated auxiliary projects, that will be in
upcoming TIP, could qualify for the swap.
Salih stated her support in opting-out due to worker implications. This included current
conditions of misclassification and treatment of workers and the consequences of
removing the federal requirements of future projects.
Mims asked Anderson if the DOT was planning on consolidating the federally funding
into a few larger projects across the state under the swap program.
Anderson responded that the federal funding would still be spread across the state to
multiple regions and projects. The swap would allow some small and medium sized
projects, like bridge replacements, to now be funded with federal funds.
Mims asked Anderson how the DOT plans to allocate the federal funding under the
swap process. Anderson stated that decision will be at the individual MPO and RPA
level. The road and bridge projects that are included within each developed TIP
program would be considered eligible. The transit projects, that receive federal
funding, would not be eligible for the swap program because the state does not have
allocated funds for transit projects.
Cole asked Ralston if the swap would be applicable and speed up the 6-lane
expansion of I-80 and I-380. Ralston stated those projects have already been
federalized and would remain under the federal requirements and processes.
Donahue asked the public union representatives if they could provide an estimate of
how many union workers identity as a minority. Gilhart estimated that out of the 16
unions, minorities make up approximately 20% of the union labor force. Donahue
expressed his concern on the conflict of supporting unions against providing amble
opportunities for minorities to advance as well.
Gilhart stated under the Davis-Bacon, the workers do not have to be union to receive
the livable wage requirement. When Davis-Bacon is applied to a project, it includes
all workers on the project. In Iowa, the heavy highway industry market share of union
construction is approximately 15-20%. The bulk of Iowa construction workers that are
receiving the benefit of the Davis-Bacon wage requirement are open shop contractors
and open shop workers.
Mims stated her support for opting-out of the swap to gain a better understanding of
the rules, savings, and implications the swap. Mims acknowledged the complexity of
this agenda item and indicated her decision between following staff recommendations
and considering the removal of federal requirements. The repercussions of cost
savings, local wage impacts, safety, and quality of constructions are all unknown.
Foster stated her support for opting-out for one year to make sure this economic
impact is beneficial to everyone involved on projects, to see the impact of overall
safety, if other areas are still supporting livable wages, and environmental regulations
are still in place.
6
Thomas expressed his support in opting-out. Reasons included that a majority of other
states do not have a swap program, Davis-Bacon legislation has been around for over
87 years, and opting-out will provide more comparative data about the swap for Iowa.
Donahue called for the vote on the previous motion made by Carberry. Ralston
clarified that the motion was to opt-out of Federal-Aid-Swap. The motion was
approved with four descending votes made by Berner, Form, Donahue, and Gill
and one accused vote by Sayre.
b. Consider approval of the Locally Determined Projects list for the FY2019 MPOJC
Transportation Planning Work Program
Ralston stated that MPOJC compiles a list of projects for the upcoming fiscal year each
spring in the Transportation Planning Work Program. This is required by the Federal
Highway Administration and the Iowa DOT. We utilize the program to schedule and plan
ahead for data collection and research necessary to complete the projects. Attached in
the agenda packet is the list of work program projects that have been receive to date from
TTAC members and other respective staff.
The MPO is aware that other projects and data collection needs come up during the year.
While the MPO usually is able to fit smaller unscheduled projects into our work program.
More significant projects proposed during the year may not be able to be completed and
would be brought to the Board at the time.
Ralston asked the Board to review the list of the attached projects. TTAC had unanimously
recommended approval of the projects list at their March 20th meeting. The full work
program will be presented to the Board at the next meeting for consideration.
Motion to approve was made by Botchway II; From seconded. The motion was
approved unanimously.
c. Consider approval of FY2019 MPOJC Transit Program of Projects
Neumann informed the Board that Coralville Transit, Iowa City Transit, and University of
Iowa Cambus have programmed projects for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds
in FY2019. The Transit Program of Projects includes all the anticipated federally funded
projects for all three transit systems, and is a federal requirement. Not every project will
be funded. In order to be eligible for funding, projects must be included in the Program of
Projects. The MPO has published a public notice regarding the FY2019 Transit Program
of Projects and is requesting public comment from the community.
The FY2019-2022 TIP will include the FY2019 Iowa DOT’s Consolidated Transit Funding
applications, for each transit system, in the Transit Program of Projects. This information
is being distributed to the Board for review. It will be included in the draft FY2019-2022
MPOJC TIP in May. The final TIP will be prepared for Board approval in late June or early
July. Neumann stated TTAC had unanimously recommended approval of the FY2019
MPOJC Federal Transit Program of Projects.
Motion to approve was made by Gill; Cole seconded. The motion was approved
unanimously.
d. Update on CRANDIC passenger rail study
Neumann provided the Board with the previously requested IOWA DOT methodology for
forecasting autonomous vehicle and passenger rail ridership along the I-380 corridor.
7
Appendix D, of the Interstate 380 Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) Study,
includes the Simplified Trips on Project Software (STOPS) modeling program,
methodology, and the assumptions made on the ridership analysis.
Neumann informed the Board that MPOJC has discussed the scope of service regarding
the Phase III Passenger Rail Study with the Iowa DOT, CRANDIC Railroad, and HDR
Consulting. The MPO is waiting to review the draft scope proposal and cost estimate HDR
will provide.
Neumann stated that HDR will also provide a draft scope proposal and cost estimate for
a “rails-to-trails” study through the CRANDIC corridor between Iowa City and North
Liberty. Additional funding will be required for this study.
Berner asked Neumann if the scope would include projected rider fare and operating
costs. Neumann confirmed that both the projected rider fare and operating costs would be
included in the study.
e. Update on the MPOJC 2017 Transportation Planning Annual Report
Ralston stated that the 2017 MPOJC Transportation Planning Division Annual Report
outlines much of the work staff completed in the calendar year of 2017. The report is
presented to the Board to show the breadth and type of work that was requested of the
MPO.
f. Update from Coralville Staff on significant transportation projects in the community
Holderness stated the City of Coralville is undergoing two major arterial road projects and
one trail project in 2018. The last segment of the major safety improvement project along
First Avenue south of I-80, from 6th Street to 9th street will be completed in November, with
the exception of landscaping.
Carberry asked Holderness if First Avenue would still have the four proposed entrances
into the Iowa River Landing (IRL) when construction is completed.
Holderness replied that due to boundaries, it remains important to have four adequate
access points from First Avenue. There are currently two entrances at 7th Street and 9th
Street. The 6th Street entranceway will be added in the First Avenue project and the IRL
Place entrance will be constructed during reconstruction of the I-80 Interchange Project
with the Iowa DOT.
Holderness stated that the City of Coralville is also completing the final segment of Coral
Ridge Avenue improvements. This is a joint project with the City of North Liberty along
Coral Ridge Avenue from Oakdale Boulevard to Forevergreen Road. This project will
include a public road closure along Coral Ridge Avenue to allow project completion by
November. The closure is expected to be from May through November.
Holderness stated that Clear Creek Trail Phase 6 and 7 has begun. This will connect the
existing trail in Coralville to the existing trail in Tiffin. The expected completion date is
expected in Fall of 2018 for both phases, weather dependent.
6. Adjournment
Motion to approve was made by Cole; seconded by Mims. The motion was approved
unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 PM.