32740 - CDBG Water/Sewer Applicant Information Application - Mount Pleas… · Elected Official Mr. Steve Brimhall Salutation First Name Last Name Suffix * 220 W. Monroe Street Address

Application

32740 - CDBG Water/Sewer 55769 - City of Mount Pleasant Jay Street Sanitary Sewer Replacement

CDBG

Status: Not Awarded

SubmittedDate:

2012-12-18 04:15:20

Signature: Tracey LammSubmittedBy:

Tracey Lamm

Applicant Information

Project OfficerAnA User Id TRACEY.LAMM@IOWAID First Name* Tracey Lamm

First Name Middle Name Last Name

Title: Email:* [email protected] Address:* 211 N. Gear Avenue Suite 100 City* West Burlington Iowa 52655

City State/Province Postal Code/Zip

Phone:* 319-753-4306 Phone Ext.

Program Areaof Interest*

CDBG

Fax: Agency

Organization InformationOrganizationName:*

Southeast Iowa Regional PlanningCommission

OrganizationType:*

Regional Planning Commission

Tax ID: DUNS: OrganizationWebsite:

www.seirpc.com

Address: 211 N. Gear Avenue, Suite 100 West Burlington Iowa 52655

City State/Province Postal Code/Zip

Phone: 319-753-5107 Ext.

Fax: 319-754-4763 Benefactor VendorNumber

Cover Sheet-General Information

Authorized Official

Name* Steven Brimhall

Title* Mayor

Organization* City of Mount Pleasant

Address* 220 W. Monroe Street

City/State/Zip* Mount Pleasant Iowa 52641

City State Zip

Telephone Number* 319-385-1470

IowaGrants https://www.iowagrants.gov/getApplicationPrintPreview.do?documentP...

1 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

E-Mail* [email protected]

Fiscal Officer/Agent

Name* Susan Coffey

Title Grant Administrator

Organization* Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission

Address* 211 N. Gear Avenue

Suite 100

City/State/Zip* West Burlington Iowa 52656

City State Zip

Telephone Number* 319-753-4302

E-Mail* [email protected]

County(ies) Participating,Involved, or Affected by thisProposal*

Henry County

Congressional District(s)Involved or Affected by thisProposal*

2 Congressional Map

Iowa Senate District(s) Involvedor Affected by this Proposal*

42 District Map

Iowa House District(s) Involvedor Affected by this Proposal*

84 District Map

Applicant Information

Applicant* City of Mount Pleasant

City/County/COG* Mount Pleasant Henry Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission

City County COG

Don't have a DUNS #? Click here to apply.

* 884521493 DUNS #

Contact Information

Project Engineer* Warner Engineering Associates, Inc. Firm Name

* James Warner, P.E. Name/Title

* 102 S. Saunders Avenue Address

* Mount Pleasant Henry 52641

City County Zip

* 319-385-4180 319-385-4401 [email protected]

Phone Fax E-mail


2 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Elected Official Mr. Steve Brimhall

Salutation First Name Last Name Suffix

* 220 W. Monroe Street Address

Address 2

* Mount Pleasant Henry County 52641

City County Zip

* 319-385-1470 319-385-1466 [email protected]

Phone Fax E-mail Address

Project Information

Provide the address for City Hall for all area-wide benefit projects.

Project Address* Jay Street Address

* Mount Pleasant Henry County 52641

City County Zip

Check all that apply:

Applicant received CDBGFunds.

If prior CDBG funds received,please identify the program, yearand amount?

Applicant has received no priorfunding.

Yes

Applicant will contract foradministration.

If applicant will contract foradministration, please identifythe entity:

Applicant will administer grant

If the applicant plans toadminister the grant, pleasedescribe applicant'sadministrative capacity.

Project Activity

Will any activites be conductedin a 100-year flood plain?*

No

Will project activity includedemolition of a standingstructure?*

No

If yes, is the structure occupied?

Year structure was built

Is this project identified in anIowa Great Places agreement?*

No Projects included in an Iowa Great Places agreement within three years of submission of this applications entitles the applicant to additionalconsideration.

If this is a wastewater project,provide date of the projectinitiation meeting with DNR.

07/12/2012 The Department of Natural Resources requires project initiation meetings for all wastewater projects before they will review the projectplans and specifications. Completion of this meeting prior to submitting the CDBG application will be an indication of readiness to proceed.


3 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Will a delay in the contribution oflocal effort be necessary?*

No

If yes, until what date? If the local funds for your project are from another outside agency (i.e. USDA_RD or IDNR) and you anticipate a delay in the receipt of thosefunds, you may consider requesting a delay of local effort. This will allow you to draw CDBG funds for project costs until the local funds aresecured. A delay of local funds can be granted until a specified date (not to exceed two months following the project bid letting ) oruntil two-thirds of the grant amount has been drawn down, whichever comes first.

Proposed end date* 10/14/2014 (All contracts will be 18 months unless you anticipate a shorter schedule)

Project Purpose

Sewer Activity Descriptions Water Activity Descritpions

Budget Activity

Row Activity ActivityDescription

PerformanceTargets

CDBGAmount

Local Amount Total ActivityAmount

Total CDBGAmount

Total LocalAmount

Activity 155 - SanitarySewerImprovements

Snipe RunInterceptorSewer

$580,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $2,080,000.00 $580,000.00 $1,500,000.00

Activity 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Activity 3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Activity 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Administration181 -Administration

Enginering,Testing,Administration,Inspection

$20,000.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00

Totals $600,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $2,100,000.00 $600,000.00 $1,500,000.00

Sources of Local Funding

Row Source of Local funding Amount Local Funds Secured? DateLocalFundsWill beSecured

Source 1 DNR/SRF $1,500,000.00 Yes

Source 2 $0.00

Source 3 $0.00

Source 4 $0.00

Construction Cost Detail

Row Item Description Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost

Item 1 Snipe Run Interceptor Sewer $900,000.00

Item 2Pavement and SidewalkReplacement

$800,000.00

Item 3 $0.00


4 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Item 4 $0.00

Totals $1,700,000.00

Professional Fees and Permits

Description Estimated Cost

Final Design $120,000.00

Construction Administration $210,000.00

Permits/Archaeological Survey $50,000.00

Legal and Bonding Fees $0.00

CDBG Administration $20,000.00

Other (Please specify below) $0.00

Totals $400,000.00

Related Construction Costs

Description Related Construction Estimated Cost

Real Property/Easements/Acquisition $0.00

Contigencies $0.00

Other (Please specify below) $0.00

Totals $0.00

Other Narrative

If other professional fees orpermits, please describe:

If other related constructioncosts, please describe:

Preparer

Date Prepared: 7/2/2012

Estimates Prepared by: James Warner, P.E.

Address/Phone/E-mail: 102 S. Saunders Avenue, Mount Pleasant, IA 319-385-4180 [email protected]

LMI Benefit Chart

Row Project Activity (as listed on thebudget)

Total Persons Served Total LMI Persons Served LMIBenefit

Activity 155 - Sanitary SewerImprovements

8751 5551 63.0


5 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Activity 2 0

Activity 3 0

Activity 4 0

Totals

Source of LMI Benefit Information Provided Above (Check one)

Local Income Survey Yes

Special Census

2000 HUD Census Data Note: 2010 Census CDBG Percentage of Low & Moderate Incomes For Cities & Counties has not been released. Please use 2000 Censusdata available on our web site at http://iowalifechanging.com/community/community/default.aspx.

Other

If Other, please specify

Beneficiary Race/Ethnicity Chart

Racial/Ethnic Group Number of Persons - Each Group Number of Persons - Hispanic Origin

White 539

Black/African American 13

Asian 3

American Indian/Alaskan Native 2

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 4

American Indian/Alaskan Native & White

Asian & White 6

Black/African American & White

American Indian/Alaskan Native &Black/African American

Other Multi-Racial 4 31

Sub-Total 571 31

Totals 571 31

Number of Users

Row Water Sewer

Number of Residential Users 2960 2577

User Fees & Revenues

Row Water Fees Sewer Fees

Current average monthly residential bills $24.00 $24.00

Projected average monthly bill with CDBGfunds

$26.00 $26.00


6 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Projected average montly bill without CDBGfunds

$27.00 $27.00

Rate Increase

Month/Year of last water rateincrease

October 2012

Month/Year of last sewer rateincrease

July 2012

Bond & Debt Information

City only, do not include county/school district levies

Current Tax Levy* $12.00 /$1,000 of assessed value

Bonding Capacity* $19,756,362.00 5% of assessed valuation

Current General Obligation BondIndebtedness*

$8,680,000.00

Detail of Existing Debt

Row Debt Type(Rev. Bond,GO Bond, Other)

Purpose Issue Date Issue Amount Yearof

Retirement

Water Utility Debt 1 Revenue water treatment plant 4/2/2012 $2,950,000.00 2019

Water Utility Debt 2 $0.00



Sewer Utility Debt 1 Revenue Refinance SewerImprovements

$9,611,000.00 2025

Sewer Utility Debt 2 SRF Inflow/Infiltration Study $356,000.00 2012

Sewer Utility Debt 3 SRF Jay Street Planning $250,000.00 2013

Sewer Utility Debt 4 $0.00

All Other Debt 1 Revenue Diesel Generation Plant 5/2009 $3,600,000.00 2017

All Other Debt 2 $0.00



Outstanding Debt

Total outstanding water utilitydebt (GO Bonds, Revenue Bondsand other debt):

$2,912,000.00

Total outstanding sewer utilitydebt (GO Bonds, Revenue Bondsand other debt):

$2,280,000.00


7 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Project Feasibility Narrative

Project Feasibility Narrative

What community needs will this project address?*

Prepare a brief narrative describing the proposed project.

The City of Mount Pleasant has several issues with inflow and infiltration in the city's sanitary sewer system.The city has made several efforts to curtail the problem, but it remains an issue, especially in the Snipe RunSewer-shed, the city's worst area for inflow-infiltration overloading of the sanitary sewer system and the stormsewers. This causes backup of water into basements and overflows from the sewers. The Snipe RunSewer-shed is also the cities central collection system and among the oldest sewer infrastructure in MountPleasant.

The sanitary sewers in the Snipe Run Sewer-shed are in bad condition from installation methods anddeterioration over a century of use. Pipe conditions that make the proper operation and maintenance of thesewers impossible include:

Broken PipesMisaligned joints that catch debris in the wastewater and sometimes create backups;Improper taps for service lines, sometimes protruding so far into the pipe the cleaning equipment orcamera cannot pass or inspect the tapSagging flow lines allow water to stand in the pipeManholes made of brick that frequently cause cloggingSewer locations under residences - a situation unique to the Snipe Run Sewer-shed exists because thesewers were constructed along the waterways where they could serve the most area and installationrequired less digging; people were allowed to construct homes over the sewers, and there are norecorded easements that allow work in the back yards to do proper maintenance or repairs of the sewerwithout disturbing the neighborhood, buying those homes, and relocation of the residents.

The city's Northeast Lagoon cannot provide adequate treatment, so effluent quality does not always comply withWater Quality Limits of the NPDES Permit. Most difficulties are related to the influent volume and rainfall causesinflow and infiltration into the sewers resulting in large volumes of influent, which overloads the lagoon. Whileweather cannot be controlled, there are options for covering the lagoon and the volume of wastewater going intothe lagoon can also be controlled.

What specific outcomes will result from completion of the project?*

The City of Mount Pleasant will be able to comply with the NPDES Permit , discharging treated water that meetsthe Water Quality Limits, while providing good, cost-effective sewer service for the residents and businesses ofthe community.

How has the number of beneficiaries been documented?*

The beneficiaries of the project are the residents and businesses that are located within the Snipe RunSewer-shed area of Mount Pleasant. The number of beneficiaries has been determined by a count of theresidents and businesses in this geographically defined area by the City of Mount Pleasant. This informationwas taken from US Census data and sewer user information collected by the City of Mount Pleasant.

How has the LMI benefit been documented?*

The City of Mount Pleasant has conducted a Low to Moderate Income Survey using guidelines specified by theIowa Economic Development Authority. The survey results indicate that there are a total of 3,010 households in


8 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

the project area. The number of households contacted for the survey was 335. The city received an 84%response rate to the survey and it was determined through the data collected that 63.44% of those surveyed arebelow the LMI income threshold. This number indicates the City of Mount Pleasant is eligible to receiveCommunity Development Block Grant funds for the sewer project outlined in this application.

How soon will the project proceed if an award is made?*

Considerable planning has taken place over several years regarding this project. Provided all environmentaland archeological clearances are met, and construction permits issued - the construction of the project isscheduled to begin in October, 2013.

If applicable, has a specific sitebeen determined for theproject?*

Yes

Will there be acquisition ofproperty related to the project?*

No

Is there documented localplanning/citizen support for theproject?*

Yes

Are there formal studies byoutside agencies that supportthe project?*

Yes

Describe the project owner's capacity to operate/maintain the project and continue its viability after CDBG assistance. For a stormwaterproject, address how any green infrastructure will be maintained, if applicable.*

City personnel are responsible for all maintenance activities and record keeping. All regular maintenance/supplyexpenditures are controlled by the City Clerk and Public Works Director, and submitted to review and approvalby the City Council at regular monthly meetings. Approval of capital improvement expenditures is the soleresponsibility of the City Council. Public hearings, competitive bid procurement, and IDNR construction permitsand approved plans and specifications are required for all wastewater projects.

The city provides sewer service for a minimum plus use fee. The City may need to revise their sewer ratestructure based on IDNR recommendations to provide for debt service for this project. The City does have apublic water system, thus meters are available. Monthly sewer bills are mailed to users. Unpaid bills areassessed an additional charge. Sewer revenue funds are deposited into the Sewer Utility Account, whichincludes regular bills, rental deposits, and arrears with interest.

Project Milestones

EnvironmentalAssessment/Request for Releaseof Funds

May, 2013

Land acquisition (if applicable) N/A

Completion of final plans andspecifications

May, 2013

Construction permit issued June, 2013

Bid/contract award date August, 2013

Construction Start Date October, 2013

Construction Completion Date October, 2014


9 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Project Impact Narrative

What is the potential economic/community development impact of the project on the area? For a stormwater project, what size or quantityof rainfall event (i.e, 100-year storm, first 1.5 inches of rain, etc.) will the green and/or gray infrastructure manage? Green infrastructureutilizes practices like bioswales and pervious surfaces, and gray infrastructure utilizes curb, gutter, storm sewer pipe, etc.*

If you are applying for a stormwater project that utilizes green infrastructure, please also reference the Green Infrastructure Tip Sheet for further items to discuss in thenarrative.

The project has the potential to greatly improve a large area of sanitary sewer for the community of MountPleasant. The Snipe Run Sewer-shed encompasses some of the oldest sewer infrastructure in the community.The replacement of the collection system will greatly improve the sewer system and assist Mount Pleasant withmeeting Water Quality limits of the NPDES Permit. The project will allow Mount Pleasant to have a stable,functioning sewer system which will be of great benefit to the community and the economy of Mount Pleasant.

Who will be the project beneficiaries?*

The project beneficiaries will be the residents and businesses located within the Snipe Run Sewer-shed andalso the residents of the entire Mount Pleasant community. This project is located in the Snipe Run Sewer-shed,which is the central portion of the cities sanitary sewer system and also the oldest infrastructure. The benefits ofthis project will stretch beyond the immediate project area.

Have cooperative approaches/sharing with other area communities been considered?*

The proposed project will address sanitary sewer deterioration in the Snipe-Run Sewer-shed in Mount Pleasant.Because it involves eliminating overloading of the current sanitary sewer system it is not feasible or an option toconsider cooperative approaches/sharing with other communities.

Why are CDBG funds essential to the project?*

The City of Mount Pleasant has completed several improvements to its sanitary sewer system over the past 50years that come close to a $25 million investment, with little to no assistance from grant funds. Propertytaxpayers in the community have borne all of the cost of all previous sewer infrastructure improvements. Seweruser fees will need to be raised in order to complete this project with the help of CDBG funds. To complete thisproject without the assistance of CDBG funds will place too high of a burden on property taxpayers in the MountPleasant community.

How would the project affect current and future land use patterns?*

The City of Mount Pleasant has a solid land use plan in place. This project will not affect current land usepatterns as it will provide repairs to the current sanitary sewer system in the Snipe-Run Sewer shed. There is noplan with this project to increase the capacity of the current sanitary sewer system - which could have an impacton future land use patterns.

Is the site within the city limits?*

This project is located within the city limits of Mount Pleasant. The site for this project is Jay Street in MountPleasant. The Snipe Run Sewer-shed includes some of the oldest portions of the Mount Pleasant community.The earliest sewers in this part of the system were likely built before 1920.

Is the project appropriate for the community’s size, including expected population trends?*

The project is not an expansion of the current sanitary sewer system, but rather a project to address inflow andinfiltration issues in the current sanitary system, specifically for the Snipe-Run Sewer-shed. This project is notbeing undertaken in order to increase the current system capacity and there is not excess capacity being


10 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

planned for this project. The population of Mount Pleasant has been projected to remain steady over the nextseveral years.

Will the project have significant excess capacity?*

The project has been sized to be of maximum benefit to the Snipe Run Sewer-shed and does not includeexcess capacity in order to promote future development. The project is being proposed in order to replace anarea of sanitary sewer infrastructure that has become most troublesome to repair and maintain for thecommunity of Mount Pleasant.

How well is the project targeted for maximum impact on a geographic area/specific group?*

The project is located along Jay Street in Mount Pleasant. The replacement of the sanitary sewer in this locationwill have the greatest impact upon the Snipe-Run Sewer-shed area in Mount Pleasant - which is the location ofsome of the oldest sewer collection infrastructure in the entire community. This area is the central service areain Mount Pleasant. This location was selected because it has the greatest need for replacement and becausethe area identified for replacement will have the greatest impact on the community.

Were other options explored? Describe options considered and why they were rejected.*

The City of Mount Pleasant considered five (5) options before deciding upon the best course of action for thisproject. All of the alternatives for this project are listed here - including the project that this application is basedupon:

Expansion of the lagoon - The Lagoon is close to Big Creek and any expansion of city property would be in the flood plain andsome environmental issues could be signficant, including: a. potential discoveries of Native American or Pioneer discoveries in thearea; b. proximity of the site to residential development and limitations on expansion with clearance requirements to inhabitedbuildings; c. the adjacent property is remnant of a large farmland tract acquired for highway construction, used to mitigate wildlifehabitat, and could not easily be acquired for lagoon use; d. the aerated lagoon treatment process as a continuously dischargingsystem is unlikely to always meet the stringent Water Quality discharge limits on Big Creek, particularly as it is currently affected byinflow and infiltration.

1.

Pump all wastewater from the Lagoon site back to the 'new plant' so the lagoon could be abandoned - a. the waterwater pumpedby the Hamlin Street Lift Station would all be repumped at least doubling the cost of transporting that sewage; b. a new pumpingstation at the lagoon would be an big expense, made even more expensive if stormwater going to the lagoon is repumped back tothe new plant; c. the cost of a forcemain from the NE Lagoon to a sewer on the system with the capacity to handle that additionalflow would be huge, possibly requiring a forcemain to the transportation sewer draining directly to the Heather Branch Lift Station,without any specific routing a distance of at least four (4) miles. This option would allow for the treatment of all wastewater at thenew treatment plant with the need for only one NPDES permit and the savings of operating and maintaining the NE Lagoon systemwould be significant. However the cost to transport all of the water that is now transported to the NE Lagoon would be huge. Thecost to build a large lift station and enough forcemain to transport the sewage back to the community can easily be projected toexceed $2.5 million. The operating cost of the lift stations will continue and the city would still have a worn out interceptor sewer onSnipe Run.

2.

Pump from the Hamlin Street Lift Station to the "new plant" - a. this option would still require replacement of the Jay Streetinterceptor to carry sewage from the collector sewers in the south half of the Snipe Run Sewer Shed, and the cost to build asmaller interceptor on Jay Street would not be substantially less than extending the 24" gravity sewer at the Hamlin Street liftstation. There is not much advantage to this alternative because it still requires reconstruction of the Jay Street interceptor and theHamlin Street Lift Station to continue to operate.

3.

Gravity Interceptor Sewer from Hamlin Street Lift Station to the 24" Interceptor allows diversion of influent to the Hamlin Street LiftStation to the Saunders Branch Lift Station; b. replaces the undersized and deteriorated Snipe Run interceptor from the existing24" near Green and Locust to Madison and Hamlin intersection; c. a big price tag but probably the most cost effective solution; d.still have gravity sewer flows to the NE Lagoon, but considerably reduced and less inflow and infiltration is likely because thegravity sewer is PVC pipe with gasket joints; e. save operating costs of the Hamlin Street Lift Station by shutting it down; f. withflows considerably reduced to the NE Lagoon, the feasibility of pumping that wastewater back to this gravity sewer to flow to theplant is far more feasible, so the city would have only one plant and one permit and one discharge to manage and monitor.

4.

Build the gravity sewer from Hamlin Street Lift Station to the 24" interceptor at Green and Locust, as proposed in Option #4, plusbuild a new Northeast Lift Station to intercept the remainder of the flows to the NE Lagoon and pump back to the Hamlin Street LiftStation site - a. all flows would go to the new plant; b. a big price tag, but the cost effective portion of this alternative would be theelimination of operation costs of the NE Lagoon and the Hamlin Street Lift Station; c. use the Hamlin Street forcemain withreversed direction of flow to save money and transport the wastewater back to the new interceptor.

5.

After careful consideration, the City of Mount Pleasant chose option #4 as the solution to this issue.


11 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

How does the project promote orderly, compact development?*

The replacement of the Snipe Run Interceptor system does not represent an expansion of the current capacityof the Mount Pleasant sewer system. The project will replace deteriorated infrastructure and does notencourage development, but rather will stabilize the current interceptor system.

Survey Tabulation Results

Is the Survey Tabulation Resultsrequired?*

Yes

Month and year the survey wasconducted

September, 2012

Description of the survey methodused

Mailed out survey went to every other household.

Total number of households inthe project area

3010

Number of households in theproject area that were contacted(include contacts with noanswer)

335

Total number of households in the project area should equal the number of households contacted unless a random survey was done. If thetwo numbers do not equal, please explain.

A random survey was completed for this project.

Number of usable responses 284

Percent of householdsresponding

85.0 MUST BE 80% TO BE VALID

How many persons were belowthe LMI income figure?

394

How many persons were abovethe LMI income figure?

227

Percent of persons below theLMI income figure

63.45

Percent of persons above theLMI income figure

37.0

Total number of persons in theproject area

8751 (For community-wide benefit projects, use 2010 census population figure.)

Total number of LMI Personsbenefiting

5552

If respondents were asked other questions in addition to income, provide a breakdown of responses by number and percent of the totalresponding.

In addition to the income, respondents were asked if they would be in favor of the City of Mount Pleasantpursuing the project and of the 387 households responding, 386 indicated they were in favor of the project.

Community Development and Housing Needs Assessment


12 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Community Development and Housing Needs of LMI Persons*

The City of Mount Pleasant along with the Mount Pleasant Chamber Alliance have been working for the pastyear to improve the housing stock of the community in order to benefit the low to moderate income populationand the expected population in the future. Community members, city staff, Chamber staff, Council ofGovernment staff met with a developer recently to discuss the need in Mount Pleasant for more multi-familyhousing that would be affordable for lower wage earners. A local manufacturer of marketing materials will besubstantially increasing the payroll and the average wage being considered is $9/hour. This makes the need forsafe, adequate housing important for the community. Transit opportunities for the workforce were alsodiscussed at these meetings.

Other Community Development and Housing Needs*

The City of Mount Pleasant has received grant funding in the past in order to improve the available housingstock, specifically multi-family housing units. The city continues to work toward improved quality, affordablehousing for all residents of Mount Pleasant. The city is also served by the Southeast Iowa Regional BUSservice. The City continues to find ways that its residents can utilize SEIBUS service for their transportationneeds.

Planned or Potential Activities to Address Housing and Community Needs*

The city plans to seek out all forms of grant assistance that will provide incentives for property developers toinvest in increasing the communities availability of affordable housing.

The City also has a plan to address the communities infrastructure by applying for CDBG funding whenappropriate.

Date assessment was prepared* 10/21/2011

Location where assessment wasprepared*

Mount Pleasant Area Chamber Alliance

Number of local residentsparticipating*

15

Procurement of Engineer

Please provide the information requested below regarding the procurement of the engineering firm.

Name of newspaper notice waspublished in

Mount Pleasant News

Date of publication 09/15/2011

Date letter sent to engineeringfirms requesting qualifications

09/15/2011

List of engineering firms receiving letter request for qualifications

Shive-Hattery, 2834 Northgate Drive, Iowa City, IA

Jim Warner, Warner Engineering Associates, 102 S. Saunders Avenue, Mount Pleasant, IA

Derick Anderson, McClure Engineering Co., 705 1st Avenue N, Fort Dodge, IA

List of engineering firms submitting qualifications


13 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Jim Warner, Warner Engineering Associates, 102 S. Saunders Ave., Mount Pleasant

Veenstra and Kimm, 3000 Westown Parkway, West Des Moines Iowa

Date engineering firm selectedby governing board

06/13/2012

Name and address of engineering firm selected

Jim Warner, Warner Engineering Associates, 102 S. Saunders Ave., Mount Pleasant, Iowa 52641

Required Attachments

Attachment Description File Name TypeFileSize

A PDF of the original newspaper publication and Affidavit ofPublication evidencing the newspapers name and datepublished

Affadavit of Publication City ofMount Pleasant Jay StreetProject

Public hearing noticeAffadavit.pdf pdf290KB

Documentation that the Public Notice has been posted in three(3) places within the community, and names of posted areaslisted, signed and dated by municipality (if applicable)

Minutes of public hearingPublic Hearing Minutes City ofMount Pleasant Jay StreetSewer Project

Jay St PublicHearingMinutes.pdf pdf791KB

Completed HUD Disclosure Form 2880 (Applicant/RecipientDisclosure/Update Form).Download the form from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=2880.pdf

HUD Disclosure Form 2880City of Mount Pleasant

huddocMP2013.pdf pdf 39 KB

Map of proposed project site or service areaCity of Mount Pleasant JayStreet Sanitary Sewer ProjectArea Map

MPProjectAreaMap.pdf pdf 3.2 MB

Department of Natural Resources Notice of Violation and/oradministrative Order

Federal Assurances Signature Page.Click here for the form.

Federal Assurances SignaturePage

FEDERALASSURANCESSIGNATUREPAGEMP2013.pdf pdf 49 KB

Documentation of commitments from other funding sources ordocumentation that applications have been submittd to totherfunding sources (i.e., USDA-RD, IDNR)

IUP for City of Mount Pleasant IUP-MP.pdf pdf182KB

DNR inspection reports or correcspondence that indicates aneed for the project (if applicable)

Copy of current rate ordinance for water/sewer utilitiesWater and Sewer RateOrdinances City of MountPleasant

SewerRateOrdianceMP.pdf pdf 55 KB

Facility Plan for wastewater projects or PreliminaryEngineering Report for water projects**If over 25 pages, please mail hard copy to:Iowa Economic Development AuthorityAttn: Barb Harvey200 E. Grand Ave.Des Moines, Iowa 50309

Documentation of local planning/citizen support

Documentation of formal studies by outside agencies thatsupport the project

If LMI survey completed, please upload Income SurveyInstrument

City of Mount Pleasant LMISurvey Instrument

Mount Pleasant LMI Survey.doc doc 48 KB

Other Attachments


14 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

File Name Description File Size

Brinshore visit--Introductory Letter.doc (366 KB) Letter documenting housing and community needs planning for the City of Mount Pleasant. 366 KB

Procurement Policy.pdf (123 KB) City of Mount Pleasant Procurement Policy 123 KB

Resolution2012-79.pdf (22 KB) City of Mount Pleasant Resolution Approving CDBG Application for the Jay Street Sewer Project 22 KB

Citizen Participation Checklist

Statutory Requirements (All CDBG Applications)

Part I – Public Noticing Requirements

Public Notice met (Not less than4 days and no more than 20days)*

Yes

Published in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation*

Yes

Affidavit of Publication and copyof publication uploaded?*

Yes

Documentation that PublicNotice was posted in three publicplaces is uploaded *

No

Documentation includes datesand places posted*

No

Held prior to governing body’sfinal action regarding the filing ofthe application*

Yes

Public Notice states:

Specific grounds for the publichearing*

Yes

Date of Public Hearing 10/24/2012

Time of Public Hearing 7 p.m.

Hearing Location Mount Pleasant City Hall, 220 W. Monroe

City/Zip Mount Pleasant 52641

Part II – Public Hearing Requirements

Minutes of public hearing areuploaded*

Yes

Was the need for the activitiesidentified?*

Yes

Was the funding of the proposedactivites and the sources offunds explained?*

Yes

Was the date the CDBGapplication will be submittedprovided at the meeting?*

Yes

Was the amount of the requestedfederal funds provided at themeeting?*

Yes

Estimated portion of federalfunds that will benefit low- andmoderate-income persons wasstated?*

Yes


15 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

Location of proposed activitiesstated?*

Yes

Were plans to minimizedisplacement of persons andbusinesses resulting fo fundedactivities discussed?*

Not Applicable

Were plans to assist personsactually displaced discussed?*

Not Applicable

Were the nature of the proposedactivities discussed?*

Yes

Minority Impact Statement

Question # 1

1. The proposed grant programsor policies could have adisproportionate or uniquePOSITIVE IMPACT on minoritypersons. *

No

If YES, describe the positiveimpact expected from thisproject

Indicate the group(s) positivelyimpacted.

Question # 2

2. The proposed grant projectprograms or policies could havea disproportionate or uniqueNEGATIVE IMPACT on minoritypersons. *

No

If YES, describe the negativeimpact expected from thisproject.

If YES, present the rationale forthe existence of the proposedprogram or policy.

If YES, provide evidence ofconsultation with representativesof the minority groups impacted.

Indicate the group(s) negativelyimpacted.

Question # 3

3. The proposed grant projectprograms or policies are NOTEXPECTED TO HAVE ADISPROPORTIONATE ORUNIQUE IMPACT on minoritypersons. *

Yes

If YES, present the rationale fordetermining no impact.

The completion of this project will be of equal benefit to all of the citizens located within the project area and the citizens of the entire Mount Pleasant community. However, the benefit will not be greater for any minority person or group.

Certification

I hereby certify that theinformation on this form iscomplete and accurate, to the

Yes


16 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

best of my knowledge.*

Name of Person SubmittingCertification. *

Steven Brimhall

Title of Person SubmittingCertification*

Mayor

Application Information:

Item Yes or NA If No, Date Requested Date Received

Is the DUNS# provided? Yes

Is flood plain informationprovided?

Yes

Demolition of a standingstructure information provided?

Yes

Is the grant amount requested ator below the amount allowable?

Yes

Is administration line 10% or lessof CDBG amount AND of totalcost?

Yes

Is Racial/Ethnic chart filled out? Yes

Is the breakdown of constructioncost detail and professional fees& permit estimates completed?

Yes

Is applicant financial informationsheet completed? (water/sewerfund and projects ANDcommunity facilities stormsewer projects)

Yes

Is operating budget completed?(community facilities projectsonly)

Not Applicable

Is project location map included? Yes 12/06/2012 12/24/2012

Is CEO signature in federalassurances page?

Yes

If a joint application, is assuranepage for each entity included?

Not Applicable

Is community needs assessmentincluded and less than 3 yearsold?

Yes

Is disclosure statementcompleted and signed?(If Yes on Part 1 Question #2,then Parts II and III must alsobe completed)

Yes

Are copies of the utility rateordinances included?(Water/Sewer only)

Yes

Does the application file containa copy of the official certifiedbudget form fromthe Departmentof Management? (water/sewerfund projects AND communityfacilities storm sewer projects)

Not Applicable

Does the application contain theGreen Development Plan andChecklist? (community facilities

Not Applicable


17 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

projects only)

Is the Green Streets Criteriaproximity map for newconstruction included?(community facilities projectsonly)

Not Applicable

Public Hearing


Is public hearing noticeduploaded?

Yes

Is the publication date no lessthan 4 days but no more than 20days prior to the hearing?

Yes

Are public hearing minutesuploaded and includes noticedate?

Yes

Engineering:


Is the engineer procurementform completed? Water/sewerfund projects only

Yes

Is preliminary engineering reportincluded and signed?(Water/sewer fund projectsonly)

Yes 12/06/2012 12/18/2012

Computations:


Are computations in ProjectActivity Chart correct?cross-check total budget withtotal on cost estimate sheet:

Yes

Reason for Not Awarding

If not awarded, reason : Based on the information presented, there were concerns that the project would not proceed in atimely manner.

Other Reason for not awarding:

Decline Letter:


18 of 18 4/4/2013 10:29 AM

124 South Main Street • Mount Pleasant, Iowa 52641 • 319-385-3101 phone • 319-385-3102 fax • www.mountpleasantiowa.org

October 21, 2011

Mr. David Brint Brinshore Development, LLC 666 Dundee Road, Suite 1102 Northbrook, Illinois 60062 RE: Welcome to Mount Pleasant, Iowa Dear Mr. Brent: On behalf of the Mount Pleasant Area Chamber Alliance and the people of Henry County, Iowa, I want to thank you for visiting our county and region. The recent merger of Alaniz, LLC and MetroGroup Corp. has brought a rush of excitement to Mount Pleasant. Among our most important employers when they were separate, these two companies together form a powerful engine for economic growth. The good news does create some challenges, albeit desirable ones. The City of Mount Pleasant simply is unable to meet the workforce demands of an expanding Alaniz MetroGroup Marketing Services with its current population. As a result, a new wave of residents is already arriving. The difficulty becomes providing housing for these men and women that is safe and attractive. Anticipating several years ago that a housing shortage could occur, city and county leaders identified an excellent location for a multi-family apartment complex on county-owned property near two U.S. four-lane highways, a city park, and one of Mount Pleasant’s largest grocery stores. That this site is within one mile of Alaniz MetroGroup only increases the advantages. Local officials are now committed to identifying a development partner with the expertise and resources to build and operate a housing complex that will make the entire community proud. Brinshore Development, with its knowledge of southeast Iowa and reputation for success, was foremost on our list, and we look forward to working with your organization in the near future. Please call my cell phone, 319.537.1550, or reach me by email, [email protected], with any questions.

Sincerely,

Kiley Miller Executive Vice President

mailto:[email protected]�


U.S. Census Quick Facts 2010—Mount Pleasant, Iowa

People QuickFacts Mount Pleasant Iowa Population, 2010 8,668 3,046,355 Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 -0.9% 4.1% Population, 2000 8,751 2,926,324 Persons under 5 years, percent, 2010 5.8% 6.6% Persons under 18 years, percent, 2010 21.1% 23.9% Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2010 15.3% 14.9% Female persons, percent, 2010 47.3% 50.5% White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 85.7% 91.3% Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 4.3% 2.9% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2010 (a) 0.4% 0.4% Asian persons, percent, 2010 (a) 4.4% 1.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2010 (a) 0.3% 0.1% Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2010 2.5% 1.8% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2010 (b) 6.7% 5.0% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2010 82.2% 88.7% Living in same house 1 year & over, 2005-2009 78.4% 83.4% Foreign born persons, percent, 2005-2009 8.3% 3.8% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2005-2009 11.1% 6.4% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2005-2009 85.6% 89.6% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2005-2009 22.2% 24.2% Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2005-2009 13.3 18.3 Housing units, 2010 3,365 1,336,417 Homeownership rate, 2005-2009 65.0% 72.9% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2005-2009 25.2% 18.7% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2005-2009 $92,600 $115,800 Households, 2005-2009 3,565 1,215,970 Persons per household, 2005-2009 2.36 2.36 Per capita money income in past 12 months (2009 dollars) 2005-2009 $24,189 $25,060 Median household income 2005-2009 $38,740 $48,052 People of all ages in poverty - percent, 2005-2009 15.9% 11.4% Business QuickFacts Mount Pleasant Iowa Total number of firms, 2007 828 259,931 Black-owned firms, percent, 2007 F 0.8% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2007 F 0.2% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2007 F 1.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2007 F 0.1% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2007 F 0.9% Women-owned firms, percent, 2007 20.5% 25.5% Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000) 849,909 97,592,051 Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000) 42,779 41,068,338 Retail sales, 2007 ($1000) 185,962 39,234,649 Retail sales per capita, 2007 $21,130 $13,172 Accommodation and food services sales, 2007 ($1000) 20,289 4,737,719


Geography QuickFacts Mount Pleasant Iowa Land area in square miles, 2010 8.51 55,857.13 Persons per square mile, 2010 1,019.0 54.5 FIPS Code 54705 19

Counties Henry County

(a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.

FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data NA: Not available D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information X: Not applicable S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown F: Fewer than 100 firms Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts


U.S. Census Quick Facts 2010—Henry County, Iowa

People QuickFacts Henry County Iowa Population, 2010 20,145 3,046,355 Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 -0.9% 4.1% Population, 2000 20,336 2,926,324 Persons under 5 years, percent, 2010 5.8% 6.6% Persons under 18 years, percent, 2010 23.2% 23.9% Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2010 16.0% 14.9% Female persons, percent, 2010 48.8% 50.5% White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 92.1% 91.3% Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 2.2% 2.9% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2010 (a) 0.3% 0.4% Asian persons, percent, 2010 (a) 2.3% 1.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2010 (a) 0.1% 0.1% Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2010 1.6% 1.8% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2010 (b) 3.8% 5.0% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2010 90.1% 88.7% Living in same house 1 year & over, 2005-2009 84.9% 83.4% Foreign born persons, percent, 2005-2009 4.5% 3.8% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2005-2009 6.4% 6.4% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2005-2009 88.1% 89.6% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2005-2009 19.7% 24.2% Veterans, 2005-2009 1,598 245,653 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2005-2009 17.4 18.3 Housing units, 2010 8,280 1,336,417 Homeownership rate, 2005-2009 73.0% 72.9% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2005-2009 15.7% 18.7% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2005-2009 $94,200 $115,800 Households, 2005-2009 8,028 1,215,970 Persons per household, 2005-2009 2.44 2.36 Per capita money income in past 12 months (2009 dollars) 2005-2009 $23,838 $25,060 Median household income, 2009 $43,887 $48,065 Persons below poverty level, percent, 2009 15.8% 11.8% Business QuickFacts Henry County Iowa Private nonfarm establishments, 2009 517 80,971 Private nonfarm employment, 2009 13,492 1,283,769 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2009 11.9% 1.5% Nonemployer establishments, 2009 1,258 195,410 Total number of firms, 2007 1,547 259,931 Black-owned firms, percent, 2007 F 0.8% American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2007 F 0.2% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2007 F 1.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2007 F 0.1% Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2007 F 0.9% Women-owned firms, percent, 2007 23.4% 25.5%


Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000) 889,862 97,592,051

Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000) 90,587 41,068,338

Retail sales, 2007 ($1000) 214,737 39,234,649

Retail sales per capita, 2007 $10,665 $13,172 Accommodation and food services sales, 2007 ($1000) 22,246 4,737,719 Building permits, 2010 18 7,607

Federal spending, 2009 138,341 28,948,525

Geography QuickFacts Henry County Iowa Land area in square miles, 2010 434.33 55,857.13 Persons per square mile, 2010 46.4 54.5 FIPS Code 87 19 Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area None

(a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.

FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data NA: Not available D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information X: Not applicable S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown F: Fewer than 100 firms Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts

Documents

32740 - CDBG Water/Sewer Applicant Information Application - Mount Pleas… · Elected Official Mr. Steve Brimhall Salutation First Name Last Name Suffix * 220 W. Monroe Street Address