Inventory of County Records : Appanoose County, 1978.

This is an inventory of public records from Appanoose County. The State Historical Society of Iowa received funding from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission along with 5 other Iowa counties for this two year study.

Inventory of County Records: Dubuque County, 1978.

This is an inventory of public records from Dubuque County. The State Historical Society of Iowa received funding from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission along with 5 other Iowa counties for this two year study

Inventory of County Records: Iowa County, 1978.

This is an inventory of public records from Iowa County. The State Historical Society of Iowa received funding from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission along with 5 other Iowa counties for this two year study.

Inventory of County Records : Ringgold County,1978.

This is an inventory of public records from Ringgold County. The State Historical Society of Iowa received funding from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission along with 5 other Iowa counties for this two year study.

Inventory of County Records : Franklin County,1978.

This is an inventory of public records from Franklin County. The State Historical Society of Iowa received funding from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission along with 5 other Iowa counties for this two year study.

Inventory of county records : Osceola County,1978.

This is an inventory of public records from Osceola County. The State Historical Society of Iowa received funding from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission along with 5 other Iowa counties for this two year study.

Iowa 2088 Summer Storms After-Action Report Final, April 27, 2009

In the summer of 2008, the state of Iowa suffered from a series of severe storms that produced tornadoes and heavy rainfall, which resulted in widespread flooding. The Summer Storms1 lasted from late May through mid-August, with the most intense storms occurring over a month-long period from May 25 to June 25. The Summer Storms exacted a major human and economic toll on Iowa, resulting in 18 fatalities and 106 injuries, forcing the evacuation of approximately 38,000 Iowans, and impacting 21,000 housing units. Iowa’s public and private sectors suffered significant monetary damages. Eighty-six of the ninety-nine counties in the state were included in the Governor’s disaster declarations. Presidential disaster declarations made residents in 84 counties eligible for Public Assistance and 78 counties for Individual Assistance. The Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission estimated $798.3 million in damages to publicly owned buildings and infrastructure, including damages of $53 million to public transportation and $342 million to public utilities. The 2008 Summer Storms presented unique coordination challenges for the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division (HSEMD) and the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC). These challenges arose from three interrelated factors: the large number of local jurisdictions and areas impacted, the prolonged period of time that response operations were conducted, and the increasing complexity of overall response operations. These events caused the SEOC to coordinate response, mitigation, recovery, and preparedness operations simultaneously. HSEMD and the SEOC implemented a variety of measures to enhance their ability to coordinate operations and assistance to localities. The SEOC expanded its organizational structure, implemented innovative techniques, and incorporated new partners into its activities. These steps enabled HSEMD and SEOC to coordinate operations more effectively, which undoubtedly helped save lives and property, while mitigating the effects of the 2008 Summer Storms.

Tree and Brush Control For County Road Right-of-Way, Ocotober 2002

This manual summarizes the roadside tree and brush control methods used by all of Iowa's 99 counties. It is based on interviews conducted in Spring 2002 with county engineers, roadside managers and others. The target audience of this manual is the novice county engineer or roadside manager. Iowa law is nearly silent on roadside tree and brush control, so individual counties have been left to decide on the level of control they want to achieve and maintain. Different solutions have been developed but the goal of every county remains the same: to provide safe roads for the traveling public. Counties in eastern and southern Iowa appear to face the greatest brush control challenge. Most control efforts can be divided into two categories: mechanical and chemical. Mechanical control includes cutting tools and supporting equipment. A chain saw is the most widely used cutting tool. Tractor mounted boom mowers and brush cutters are used to prune miles of brush but have significant safety and aesthetic limitations and boom mowers are easily broken by inexperienced operators. The advent of tree shears and hydraulic thumbs offer unprecedented versatility. Bulldozers are often considered a method of last resort since they reduce large areas to bare ground. Any chipper that violently grabs brush should not be used. Chemical control is the application of herbicide to different parts of a plant: foliar spray is applied to leaves; basal bark spray is applied to the tree trunk; a cut stump treatment is applied to the cambium ring of a cut surface. There is reluctance by many to apply herbicide into the air due to drift concerns. One-third of Iowa counties do not use foliar spray. By contrast, several accepted control methods are directed toward the ground. Freshly cut stumps should be treated to prevent resprouting. Basal bark spray is highly effective in sensitive areas such as near houses. Interest in chemical control is slowly increasing as herbicides and application methods are refined. Fall burning, a third, distinctly separate technique is underused as a brush control method and can be effective if timed correctly. In all, control methods tend to reflect agricultural patterns in a county. The use of chain saws and foliar sprays tends to increase in counties where row crops predominate, and boom mowing tends to increase in counties where grassland predominates. For counties with light to moderate roadside brush, rotational maintenance is the key to effective control. The most comprehensive approach to control is to implement an integrated roadside vegetation management (IRVM) program. An IRVM program is usually directed by a Roadside Manager whose duties may be shared with another position. Funding for control programs comes from the Rural Services Basic portion of a county's budget. The average annual county brush control budget is about $76,000. That figure is thought not to include shared expenses such as fuel and buildings. Start up costs for an IRVM program are less if an existing control program is converted. In addition, IRVM budgets from three different northeastern Iowa counties are offered for comparison in this manual. The manual also includes a chapter on temporary traffic control in rural work zones, a summary of the Iowa Code as it relates to brush control, and rules on avoiding seasonal disturbance of the endangered Indiana bat. Appendices summarize survey and forest cover data, an equipment inventory, sample forms for record keeping, a sample brush control policy, a few legal opinions, a literature search, and a glossary.

Impacts of Rural Development on Iowa’s Secondary Road Systems, TR-548, September 2010

Today, many of Iowa’s counties are experiencing an increase in rural development. Two specific types of development were focused on for this research: rural residential subdivisions and livestock production operations. Rural residential developments are primarily year round single-family homes, though some are vacation homes. Livestock production in Iowa includes hog, beef, and poultry facilities. These two types of rural development, while obviously very different in nature and incompatible with each other, share one important characteristic: They each generate substantial amounts of new traffic for Iowa’s extensive secondary road system. This research brings together economic, spatial, and legal analysis methods to address the impacts of rural development on the secondary road system and provide county engineers, county supervisors, and state legislators with guidance in addressing the challenges associated with this development.

Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System Member Handbook, September 2011

The IPERS Member Handbook summarizes the retirement plan that is provided for most employees of Iowa’s schools, cities, counties, townships, state agencies, and other governmental units. This publication explains the rights and benefits of IPERS membership in as clear and useful a manner as possible; however, it is not intended to be a complete presentation of the IPERS law and policies. Benefits provided under IPERS differ for Special service members—sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and those working in other protection occupations, such as firefighters, police, correctional officers, and conservation officers. This publication explains what these differences are. To help you find information that applies only to you, IPERS also publishes a variety of booklets and brochures to guide you through IPERS benefits at specific stages of your career, from membership enrollment to retirement. These educational resources are available for viewing or printing from our website at www.ipers.org. You may also contact IPERS and request a free printed copy. Alternative formats containing the information in this publication are available upon request. Note: This publication reflects the law as of July 2011. Some provisions will become effective at later dates, as noted. Any inconsistencies or inadvertent omissions will be resolved in favor of the law.

2011 Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) Study A report to the Iowa Legislature, per 2011 Iowa Code Section 307.31

The transportation system is in demand 24/7 and 365 days a year irrespective of neither the weather nor the conditions. Iowa’s transportation system is an integral and essential part of society serving commerce and daily functions of all Iowans across the state. A high quality transportation system serves as the artery for economic activity and, the condition of the infrastructure is a key element for our future growth opportunities. A key component of Iowa’s transportation system is the public roadway system owned and maintained by the state, cities and counties. In order to regularly re-evaluate the conditions of Iowa’s public roadway infrastructure and assess the ability of existing revenues to meet the needs of the system, the Iowa Department of Transportation’s 2006 Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) report to the legislature included a recommendation that a study be conducted every five years. That recommendation was included in legislation adopted in 2007 and signed into law. The law specifically requires the following (2011 Iowa Code Section 307.31): •“The department shall periodically review the current revenue levels of the road use tax fund and the sufficiency of those revenues for the projected construction and maintenance needs of city, county, and state governments in the future. The department shall submit a written report to the general assembly regarding its findings by December 31 every five years, beginning in 2011. The report may include recommendations concerning funding levels needed to support the future mobility and accessibility for users of Iowa's public road system.” •“The department shall evaluate alternative funding sources for road maintenance and construction and report to the general assembly at least every five years on the advantages and disadvantages and the viability of alternative funding mechanisms.” Consistent with this requirement, the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) has prepared this study. Recognizing the importance of actively engaging with the public and transportation stakeholders in any discussion of public roadway conditions and needs, Governor Terry E. Branstad announced on March 8, 2011, the creation of, and appointments to, the Governor’s Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission (CAC). The CAC was tasked with assisting the Iowa DOT as they assess the condition of Iowa’s roadway system and evaluate current and future funding available to best address system needs. In particular the CAC was directed to gather input from the public and stakeholders regarding the condition of Iowa’s public roadway system, the impact of that system, whether additional funding is needed to maintain/improve the system, and, if so, what funding mechanisms ought to be considered. With this input, the CAC prepared a report and recommendations that were presented to Governor Branstad and the Iowa DOT in November 2011 for use in the development of this study. The CAC’s report is available at www.iowadot.gov/transportation2020/pdfs/CAC%20REPORT%20FINAL%20110211.pdf. The CAC’s report was developed utilizing analysis and information from the Iowa DOT. Therefore, the report forms the basis for this study and the two documents are very similar. Iowa is fortunate to have an extensive public roadway system that provides access to all areas of the state and facilitates the efficient movement of goods and people. However, it is also a tremendous challenge for the state, cities and counties to maintain and improve this system given flattening revenue, lost buying power, changing demands on the system, severe weather, and an aging system. This challenge didn’t appear overnight and for the last decade many studies have been completed to look into the situation and the legislature has taken significant action to begin addressing the situation. In addition, the Iowa DOT and Iowa’s cities and counties have worked jointly and independently to increase efficiency and streamline operations. All of these actions have been successful and resulted in significant changes; however, it is apparent much more needs to be done. A well-maintained, high-quality transportation system reduces transportation costs and provides consistent and reliable service. These are all factors that are critical in the evaluation companies undertake when deciding where to expand or locate new developments. The CAC and Iowa DOT heard from many Iowans that additional investment in Iowa’s roadway system is vital to support existing jobs and continued job creation in the state of Iowa. Beginning June 2011, the CAC met regularly to review material and discuss potential recommendations to address Iowa’s roadway funding challenges. This effort included extensive public outreach with meetings held in seven locations across Iowa and through a Transportation 2020 website hosted by the Iowa DOT (www.iowadot.gov/transportation2020). Over 500 people attended the public meetings held through the months of August and September, with 198 providing verbal or written comment at the meetings or through the website. Comments were received from a wide array of individuals. The public comments demonstrated overwhelming support for increased funding for Iowa’s roads. Through the public input process, several guiding principles were established to guide the development of recommendations. Those guiding principles are: • Additional revenues are restricted for road and bridge improvements only, like 95 percent of the current state road revenue is currently. This includes the fuel tax and registration fees. • State and local governments continue to streamline and become more efficient, both individually and by looking for ways to do things collectively. • User fee concept is preserved, where those who use the roads pay for them, including non¬residents. • Revenue-generating methods equitable across users. • Increase revenue generating mechanisms that are viable now but begin to implement and set the stage for longer-term solutions that bring equity and stability to road funding. • Continue Iowa’s long standing tradition of state roadway financing coming from pay-as-you-go financing. Iowa must not fall into the situation that other states are currently facing where the majority of their new program dollars are utilized to pay the debt service of past bonding. Based on the analysis of Iowa’s public roadway needs and revenue and the extensive work of the Governor’s Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission, the Iowa DOT has identified specific recommendations. The recommendations follow very closely the recommendations of the CAC (CAC recommendations from their report are repeated in Appendix B). Following is a summary of the recommendations which are fully documented beginning on page 21. 1. Through a combination of efficiency savings and increased revenue, a minimum of $215 million of revenue per year should be generated to meet Iowa’s critical roadway needs. 2. The Code of Iowa should be changed to require the study of the sufficiency of the state’s road funds to meet the road system’s needs every two years instead of every five years to coincide with the biennial legislative budget appropriation schedule. 3.Modify the current registration fee for electric vehicles to be based on weight and value using the same formula that applies to most passenger vehicles. 4.Consistent with existing Code of Iowa requirements, new funding should go to the TIME-21 Fund up to the cap ($225 million) and remaining new funding should be distributed consistent with the Road Use Tax Fund distribution formula. 5.The CAC recommended the Iowa DOT at least annually convene meetings with cities and counties to review the operation, maintenance and improvement of Iowa’s public roadway system to identify ways to jointly increase efficiency. In direct response to this recommendation, Governor Branstad directed the Iowa DOT to begin this effort immediately with a target of identifying $50 million of efficiency savings that can be captured from the over $1 billion of state revenue already provided to the Iowa DOT and Iowa’s cities and counties to administer, maintain and improve Iowa’s public roadway system. This would build upon past joint and individual actions that have reduced administrative costs and resulted in increased funding for improvement of Iowa’s public roadway system. Efficiency actions should be quantified, measured and reported to the public on a regular basis. 6.By June 30, 2012, Iowa DOT should complete a study of vehicles and equipment that use Iowa’s public roadway system but pay no user fees or substantially lower user fees than other vehicles and equipment.

Clarifying the Quadrennial Needs Study Process, December 1993

The Quadrennial Needs Study was developed to assist in the identification of highway needs and the distribution of road funds in Iowa among the various highway entities. During the period 1978 to 1990, the process has seen large shifts in needs and associated funding distribution in individual counties with no apparent reasons. This study investigated the reasons for such shifts. The study identified program inputs that can result in major shifts in needs either up or down from minor changes in the input values. The areas of concern were identified as the condition ratings for roads and structures, traffic volume and mix counts, and the assignment of construction cost areas. Eight counties exhibiting the large shifts (greater than 30%) in needs over time were used to test the sensitivity of the variables. A ninth county was used as the base line for the study. Recommendations are identified for improvements in the process of data collection in the areas of road and structure condition--rating, traffic, and in the assignment of construction cost areas. Advice is also offered in how to account for changes in jurisdiction between successive studies. Maintenance cost area assignment and levels of maintenance service are identified as requiring additional detailed research.

Evaluation of Bridge Replacement Alternatives for the County Bridge System, HR-365 August 1994

Recent reports have indicated that 23.5 percent of the nation's highway bridges are structurally deficient and 17.7 percent are functionally obsolete. A significant number of these bridges are on the Iowa county road system. The objective of the investigation described in this report was to identify, review and evaluate replacement bridges currently being used by various counties in Iowa and surrounding states. Iowa county engineers, county engineers in neighboring states as well as private manufacturers of bridge components, and regional precad prestressed concrete manufacturers were contacted to determine the most common replacement bridge types being used. Depending upon the findings of the review, possible improvements and/or new replacement bridge systems were to be proposed. A questionnaire was developed and sent to county engineers in Iowa and several counties in surrounding states. The results of the questionnaire showed that the most common replacement bridges in Iowa are the continuous concrete slab and prestressed concrete bridges. The primary reason these types are used is because of the availability of standard designs and because of their ease of maintenance. Counties seldom construct these types of bridges using their own labor forces, but instead contract the work. However, county forces are used to construct steel stringer, precast reinforced concrete and timber bridges. In general, 69 percent of the counties indicate an ability and willingness to use their own forces to design and construct relatively short span bridges (i.e., 40 A or less) provided the construction procedures are relatively simple. Several unique replacement bridge types used in Iowa that are constructed by county forces are documented and presented in this report. Sufficient details are provided to allow county engineers to determine if some of these bridges could be used to resolve some of their own replacement bridge problems. Where possible, cost information has also been provided. Each of these bridge types were evaluated for various criteria (e.g., cost effectiveness, conformance to AASI-ITO standards, range of sizes, etc.) by a panel of four Iowa county engineers; a summary of this critique is included. After evaluating the questionnaire responses from the counties and evaluating the various bridge replacement concepts currently in use, one new bridge replacement concept and one modification of a current Iowa county bridge replacement concept were developed. Both of these concepts would utilize county labor forces.

Iowa County Engineer's Annual Highway Report Requirements, January 2011

1. Iowa Code Section 309.22 requires the County Engineer to submit an Annual Report to the Iowa DOT by September 15 of each year. 2. Iowa DOT Administrative Rule 761, Chapter 173.3 requires the Iowa DOT to distribute a detailed set of instructions to the counties for the preparation of the report. The instructions constitute the standard requirements and forms to be followed. 3. Iowa DOT Administrative Rule 761,Chapter 178 establishes requirements for the reporting by cities and counties of project cost information to the Iowa DOT 4. Iowa DOT policy states that the report shall cover the fiscal year from July 1st of the past calendar year to June 30th of the current calendar year.

Low Water Stream Crossing: Design and Construction Recommendations, December 2001

Most counties have bridges that are no longer adequate, and are faced with large capital expenditure for replacement structures of the same size. In this regard, low water stream crossings (LWSCs) can provide an acceptable, low cost alternative to bridges and culverts on low volume and reduced maintenance level roads. In addition to providing a low cost option for stream crossings, LWSCs have been designed to have the additional benefit of stream bed stabilization. Considerable information on the current status of LWSCs in Iowa, along with insight of needs for design assistance, was gained from a survey of county engineers that was conducted as part of this research (Appendix A). Copies of responses and analysis are included in Appendix B. This document provides guidelines for the design of LWSCs. There are three common types of LWSCs: unvented ford, vented ford with pipes, and low water bridges. Selection among these depends on stream geometry, discharge, importance of road, and budget availability. To minimize exposure to tort liability, local agencies using low water stream crossings should consider adopting reasonable selection and design criteria and certainly provide adequate warning of these structures to road users. The design recommendations included in this report for LWSCs provide guidelines and suggestions for local agency reference. Several design examples of design calculations are included in Appendix E.