82 resultados para Mechanical property improvement


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Watershed Improvement Review Board is an independent, self-governing body which awards grants for water quality improvement in the state. Eligible applicants include soil and water conservation districts, local watershed improvement committees, public water supply utilities, counties, county conservation boards and cities. These grants are funded by the Watershed Improvement Fund. Funding for these grants comes from annual appropriations and funds from the Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties. The Board awarded six grants totalling $1,406,178 this year. In addition to providing environmental benefits, these implementation projects help stimulate economic activity and create jobs through the purchase of local goods and services. Additional grants will be awarded this spring.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Watershed Improvement Fund and the Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) were created in 2005. This statute is now codified in Iowa Code Chapter 466A. The pmpose of the Watershed Improvement Fund is to enhance the water quality and flood prevention efforts in the state through a variety of impairment-based, locally­ directed watershed improvement projects. These projects are awarded grants through a competitive application process directed by the WIRB. Appropriations to the Fund do not revert. Interest earned on the moneys on the Fund are also retained in the Fund and are used to fund projects or pay per diem and expenses of the WIRB members. In state fiscal years 2009 (SFY2009) and 2010 (SFY2010), the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $5,000,000 from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). In SFY2011, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $2,000,000 from the Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund (RBC2).

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Watershed Improvement Fund and the Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) were created in 2005. This statute is now codified in Iowa Code Chapter 466A. The purpose of the Watershed Improvement Fund is to enlmnce the water quality and flood prevention efforts in the state through a variety of impairment-based, locally­ directed watershed improvement projects. These projects are awarded grants through a competitive application process directed by the WIRB. Appropriations to the Fund do not revert except for the Capital Revenue Bonds II (RCB2) appropriation. Interest eamed on the moneys on the Fund are also retained in the Fund and are used to fund projects or pay per diem and expenses of the WIRB members. Starting July 1, 2012, the Fund is also receiving Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties. In state fiscal years 2009 (SFY2009) and 2010 (SFY2010), the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $5,000,000 from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). In SFY2011, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $2,000,000 from the Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund (RBC2). No appropriation was received in fiscal year 2012. In SFY 2013, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $1,000,000 from the RIIF.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Watershed Improvement Fund and the Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) were created in 2005. This statute is now codified in Iowa Code Chapter 466A. The purpose of the Watershed Improvement Fund is to enhance the water quality in the state through a variety of impairment-based, locally-directed watershed improvement projects. These projects are awarded grants through a competitive application process directed by the WIRB. Appropriations to the Fund do not revert except for the Capital Revenue Bonds II (RCB2) appropriation. Interest earned on the moneys on the Fund are also retained in the Fund and are used to fund projects or pay per diem and expenses of the WIRB members. Starting July 1, 2012, the Fund is also receiving Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties. In state fiscal years 2009 (SFY2009) and 2010 (SFY2010), the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $5,000,000 from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). In SFY2011, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $2,000,000 from the Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund (RBC2). No appropriation was received in fiscal year 2012. In SFY 2013, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $1,000,000 from the RIIF.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Watershed Improvement Fund and the Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) were created in 2005. This statute is now codified in Iowa Code Chapter 466A. The purpose of the Watershed Improvement Fund is to enhance the water quality in the state through a variety of impairment-based, locally-directed watershed improvement projects. These projects are awarded grants through a competitive application process directed by the WIRB. Appropriations to the Fund do not revert except for the Capital Revenue Bonds II (RCB2) appropriation. Interest earned on the moneys on the Fund are also retained in the Fund and are used to fund projects or pay per diem and expenses of the WIRB members. Starting July 1, 2012, the Fund is also receiving Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties. In state fiscal years 2009 (SFY2009) and 2010 (SFY2010), the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $5,000,000 from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). In SFY2011, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $2,000,000 from the Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund (RBC2). No appropriation was received in fiscal year 2012. In SFY 2013, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $1,000,000 from the RIIF.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

This study examines the effectiveness of Iowa’s Driver Improvement Program (DIP), measured as the reduction in the number of driver convictions subsequent to the DIP. The analysis involved a random sample of 9,055 drivers who had been instructed to attend DIP and corresponding data on driver convictions, crashes, and driver education training history that were provided by the Iowa Motor Vehicle Division. The sample was divided into two groups based on DIP outcome: satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion. Two evaluation periods were considered: one year after the DIP date (probation period) and the period from the 13th to 18th month after the DIP date. The evaluation of Iowa’s DIP showed that there is evidence of effectiveness in terms of reducing driver convictions subsequent to attending the DIP. Among the 6,790 (75%) drivers who completed the course satisfactorily, 73% of drivers had no actions and 93% were not involved in a crash during the probation period. Statistical tests confirmed these numbers. However, the positive effect of satisfactory completion of DIP on survival time (that is, the time until the first conviction) was not statistically significant 13 months after the DIP date. Econometric model estimation results showed that, regardless of the DIP outcome, the likelihood of conviction occurrence and frequency of subsequent convictions depends on other factors, such as age, driver history, and DIP location, and interaction effects among these factors. Low-cost, early intervention measures are suggested to enhance the effectiveness of Iowa’s DIP. These measures can include advisory and warning letters (customized based on the driver’s age) sent within the first year after the DIP date and soon after the end of the probation period, as well as a closer examination of DIP instruction across the 17 community colleges that host the program. Given the large number of suspended drivers who continued to drive, consideration should also be given to measures to reduce driving while suspended offenses.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has been involved in an investigation surrounding the appearance of an unknown oil within the sump in the basement of a residence in Carroll, Iowa. The IDNR has requested the Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) to prepare a health consultation regarding their investigation. The IDPH, in cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), prepared this health consultation to review the current status of the IDNR investigation and to provide an evaluation of the public health implications of exposure to the unknown oil within the sump. The information in this health consultation was current at the time of writing. Data that emerges later could alter this document’s conclusions and recommendations.