MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
APRIL 29, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:32 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
COUNTY ENGINEER MIKE GARDNER AND ASSISTANT COUNTY ENGINEER AL MILLER: RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR A SHOULDER WIDENING AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT ON WAPSI AVENUE, JOHNSON COUNTY PROJECT STP-S-C052(54)--5E-52 FROM THE FOLLOWING: RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT WITH KIMBERLEE K. CHAMBERLAIN FOR $4,950; AND RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT WITH DARYL R. LUTZ AND CLARA L. LUTZ FOR $2,813; AND BIDS RECEIVED FOR JOHNSON COUNTY PROJECT LFM-S-2-2--7X-52 (RCB CULVERT ON SAND ROAD SE)
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller presented the last 2 right-of-way purchases for the shoulder widening and pavement rehabilitation project on Wapsi Avenue south of Lone Tree. He said that Secondary Roads was able to certify the right-of-way to the State in order to keep the project in the June bid letting for construction to begin in late July or early August. Lehman asked if the cost of the right-of-way includes the cost of removing obstructions like a fence. Miller replied that they do. The Board agreed to put the contracts on a future formal agenda.
Miller explained that the bids received for the Sand Road culvert project came in higher than the engineer’s estimate of $170,000, ranging from $224,000 to $316,000. He said that the discrepancy is due the tight timeline required for beginning the construction and the bidders already had work during that time so it would cost them more to on additional work. Also, Miller explained, the job is more complicated because the area is fairly wet, which requires additional cost to de-water the area and the engineer’s estimate is also fairly low. Miller said that he doesn’t have a recommendation regarding awarding the contract today because it depends on the letting date for the Sand Road grade and pave project. If they hit that date, it will clarify some issues, but if they do not then Secondary Roads can relet the project in hopes of receiving lower cost bids. He said that he hopes to have a recommendation by May 4, 2004 to act on at the May 6, 2004 formal meeting. Stutsman clarified that if Secondary Roads makes the July letting date, then they will make a recommendation on one of the bids. Miller replied that if they make the letting date, Secondary Roads will probably recommend awarding the contract because they need to have the culvert in place to correspond with the Sand Road pave project. Stutsman asked if it would be better to wait regardless. Miller replied that the culvert is one piece in a much larger puzzle and it requires shutting down the road to build it, which affects the phasing on the grade and pave project. Miller said that Secondary Roads will have to decide whether to give the grade project contractor a late start date if they choose not to accept these bids. County Engineer Mike Gardner added that there are some options, but the July letting date would restrict those options.
Stutsman asked if Secondary Roads has ever had bids come in this much higher before. Miller replied that the causeway bridge at Lake McBride came in high and Secondary Roads worked with the contractor to modify the design to cut costs. Thompson asked if it is unusual for individual items to have such large discrepancies. Miller replied that contractors add costs to several lump sum items when they have uncertainty on other items like liquidated damages, so they know they’ll be paid for the possible variability. Harney asked if delaying this culvert would delay the rest of the project and possibly cost even more than just moving ahead in the end. Miller replied that it could because they might receive higher bids for the grading portion of the project. He added that Secondary Roads has also had bids substantially below the engineer’s estimate for projects this year. Lehman asked if Secondary Roads will be able to make modifications to keep costs down like they have in the past. Miller replied that this is a standard design so there will be few modifications they can make. The Board agreed to place their recommendation on next week’s formal agenda. Stutsman asked if the timing is important enough that Secondary Roads could not wait for a lower bid. Miller said that they could take that chance, but there are no guarantees they would save any money. Lehman said that saving money on this portion of the project may cost more later.
Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne explained that Specialty Underwriters assists the State of Iowa and the University of Iowa in consolidating their maintenance contracts to reduce costs. Horne requested maintenance contracts from departments and received about 20, which he then sent to Ted Weber of Specialty Underwriters for a quote. Horne said that the quote received would save the County $8,800 in the base cost of maintenance contracts, while still allowing departments to work with their current vendors. He said that this program would also allow departments to get performance feedback on their equipment, which they do not currently have.
Weber explained that Specialty Underwriters started working with the State one and a half years ago by starting a program that would spread the risk of repairs in order to guarantee 25% savings on maintenance contracts. He said that the County’s current vendors would service the machines, but they would bill Specialty Underwriters instead of the County. Weber explained that his company takes on the risk of equipment needing more maintenance than the premium the County is charged. He said that the County is currently preparing maintenance contracts, but with this program they would pay the flat fee to his company quarterly. Lehman asked if the premiums will rise if usage is high. Weber explained that they guarantee that every year the contract is renewed, the cost is 25% less than normal maintenance contracts. He said that his company may lose money on Johnson County’s equipment, but they would make money on other equipment, which is how they can offer this program. Stutsman asked if Specialty Underwriters would instruct departments on what they consider appropriate maintenance times if they are assuming the risk. Weber replied that they do not. He said that they have the experience to know that this business is profitable. Harney asked if the company restricts the age of equipment in the plan. Weber replied that they do not, because older equipment may not necessarily break down more often. Lehman said how the company would handle it if a vendor discontinues service on a piece of equipment. Weber replied that they would suggest a third party vendor or new equipment, but it would ultimately be the department’s decision. He said that the reporting cycles track the number of repairs on a specific piece of equipment, which they and the departments can then use to decide when the useful life is over.
Lehman asked how the process with purchasing new equipment will work. Weber explained that equipment can be easily changed, which the company will track and also evaluate new maintenance quotes the equipment vendors provide after purchase. He said that Specialty Underwriters than gives the County the option to work with that vendor or work with their company and pay less. He added that his company contract would mirror the services the quotes including the preventative maintenance and repairs the vendor is providing. Stutsman said that the County could save a great deal of money just by having the departments negotiate these contracts. Weber agreed, adding that a vendor needs to make their profit on each piece of equipment whereas his company pools the profit. Horne said that he received contracts from the following departments: Ambulance, Auditor, City Assessor, Conservation, Board of Supervisors, SEATS, Human Resources, Human Services, Planning and Zoning, Public Health, Secondary Roads and the Treasurer. Harney asked if the Sheriff’s Office equipment is included. Horne replied that they did not submit a contract. Weber added that additional equipment could be added easily to the program and would add to the $8,800 savings. Horne said that the radio equipment at the Sheriff’s Office and voting equipment contracts could also be included in the program. Weber said that the program has one anniversary date, so any additional equipment would be prorated based on that date. Thompson suggested putting the program on the agenda for the Department Heads and Elected Officials meetings. Stutsman applauded the departments that responded to the request. Horne said that once he sends out a list of what equipment is eligible, other departments may be willing to participate as well. Weber said that equipment can be added before or after the plan is implemented if new equipment has already been purchased. Lehman asked if this plan will require an amendment. Horne replied that it would because they need to add an item in Central Services and decrease the items from the individual departments. The Board decided to discuss this item on a future agenda.
GIS COORDINATOR RICK HAVEL: ANNUAL REPORT/UPDATE FOR GIS (GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM)
GIS Coordinator Rick Havel said that he has provided a report and addendum detailing GIS’s accomplishments and goals for upcoming years. He said that with the Board of Supervisors support over the past three years, the County has been able to accomplish a considerable amount regarding their Geographic Information System development. Much cooperation and coordination has occurred between the County departments and the other local governments in Johnson County. He said that County departments are using GIS technology on a daily basis and benefits are being realized in a variety of areas of regular operations. To reduce the overall burden to the County, GIS staff will continue to look for partnership opportunities with other local, state and national organizations in relation to database development projects. Johnson County is now a leader in GIS implementation at a county level and assists other counties in Iowa by sharing knowledge and expertise through participation in regional, county and State based organizations.
Havel said that the future of GIS in Johnson County is very promising with more County employees becoming interested in the assistance this technology can provide. Though sophisticated in structure, Havel explained, GIS can provide a tremendous amount of information, along with tools and resources to analyze the data. He said that the program has moved from maintaining simple maps to maintaining databases that can be used in unlimited ways. Listed below are several examples of how GIS has and will continue to produce benefits to County departments and the public to which the departments serve.
1. Online Mapping Application (public access)
a. serves GIS data through an interactive map interface
b. makes map information available via the Internet
c. has reduced counter traffic and phone calls in Planning and Zoning, Assessors’ and Auditor’s offices
d. is maintained by the Johnson County Information Services department
e. additional layers are planned to provide even more information
f. has been operational for approximately 1 year
g. used in conjunction with City and County Assessors and Treasurer websites
h. was highlighted in a segment done by KCRG TV 9 which provided good publicity
i. is currently being updated, the new version will be available in early May
j. consistently ranks 4th in visited County web pages
2. Digital Orthophotography (Aerial Photography)
a. will be available to the public via the online mapping application
b. is 50% complete and is currently ahead of schedule by one month
c. will provide additional layers for the GIS database including:
i. new county centerline, edge of roads, driveway centerlines in unincorporated areas, drainage (small creeks and ditches), building outlines, lakes and ponds, and streams
d. will assist in making parcel database more accurate and current
e. is a heavily used and requested product/service of GIS
i. can be used in a variety of database collection and maintenance projects
3. Attorney’s Office
a. used GIS produced maps in a variety of court cases
b. has recently acquired a copy of GIS software to begin producing maps themselves
4. Information Services
a. used GPS units in setting up radio communication equipment from Secondary Roads to the Conservation Department
5. Board of Supervisors
a. has and will continue to see accurate site specific maps to assist in decisions
6. Parcel Database (Auditor’s Office)
a. has undergone considerable change over the last 5 months
b. now includes features for all records in Real Estate
c. is fully contained within one database structure versus 5 months ago
7. Planning and Zoning
a. increased their ability to review subdivision and zoning applications using GIS
b. uses soils and flood plain layers in addition to parcels to conduct review
c. uses the online application to display their zonings, farmstead splits, fringe areas and historical zoning layers
d. is working on attaching a PPN to each of the records in their permit database
8. County Assessor
a. started mapping forest reserves using GIS software
b. contributed funds toward the digital orthophotography project
c. maintains a website that provides assessment information and links to GIS site
d. web technology has reduced their counter traffic greatly over the past 3 years
e. has been a strong supporter of GIS development
9. City Assessor
a. maintains a website that provides assessment information and links to GIS site
b. web technology has reduced their counter traffic greatly over the past 3 years
c. are moving to a new database format, which allows easier access to information
10. Treasurer
a. maintains a website that provides current property tax information via the Internet and a link to the online mapping application for each parcel in their database
b. working towards mapping specific locations of lots in Johnson County
11. Emergency Management
a. will benefit from current and accurate maps from County databases
b. now has access to GPS equipment that was partially funded through a Iowa Emergency Management grant that was applied for by the GIS Coordinator
12. Sheriff’s Department
a. E911 Board contributed $30,000 towards GIS mapping projects to become compliant with the Phase II mandate requiring mapping in dispatch applications for 911 cell phone calls. This money has been allocated towards the orthophotography project to help collect driveway centerlines of all unincorporated properties and building outlines for all structures over 100 square feet outside of Iowa City and Coralville
b. will be able to use mapping for use with Automatic Vehicle Location devices if purchased in the future
c. the GIS data the County maintains are more accurate then those purchased
13. Ambulance Department
a. is receiving assistant from IS and the GIS Coordinator to select an AVL provider
14. SEATS Department
a. wants to update their older version of the GIS software to the County’s version
b. currently uses AVL technology and will be a great resource in planning and implementing AVL in the Ambulance Department
15. Health Department
a. has strongly supported GIS and is eager to implement GPS in data collection
16. Secondary Roads
a. has been using GIS data and software in project planning activities
Stutsman asked if all the online mapping information is available to the public. Havel replied there are internal and external websites, but the only difference is staff can search by name while the public cannot. He added that currently the site provides the information the public is demanding. Stutsman expressed her concern with information like utility easements being available to the public due to safety concerns. Havel agreed, adding that their goal is not to provide every type of information possible, at least to the public at large. He added that the information is useful, especially by staff because using things like the orthophotography is helpful is discussing issues with the public. He said that future goals for the photography project including collaboration with other entities to decrease costs.
Thompson asked if a fee structure has been implemented for this information. Havel replied that GIS staff currently charges $.10 per parcel for data processing for software for profit making entities. He said that in addition to a per parcel rate they also charge an hourly processing fee of $60 per hour with a minimum charge of $15. Havel added that there is a $50 global layer charge for subdivisions. He said that mapping services is $50 per hour and fees based on the size and color of maps provided. He added that maps that have already been created only incur a $5 reprint charge. Lehman said that before the project began there was a great deal of skepticism, but the results are now being seen. He said that it may take some effort by consumers, but the information is available. Lehman said that it takes time to come to the County building and has costs associated with individuals preparing the data, so the web page has probably saved additional employees. He said that almost every department has made use of this information and it is only the tip of the iceberg. Havel said that it typically takes about 5 years to fully implement a GIS program, but Johnson County is ahead of schedule as far as how information is disseminated. He said that he’s struggled at times with discussing with departments how this product can be used, but there are great benefits and the departments are now working together and sharing information. Havel said that they have technical advisory meeting to help facilitate that progress for County departments and also coordination meetings with several external entities. He added that an example of a coordinated effort is the DNR is working on a geologic map for Johnson County, which builds on the County’s own GIS information.
Lehman asked if Havel has had complaints regarding the accuracy of the information because it takes education to realize that what the Treasurer is reporting as taxable acres is not necessarily the same figure in the GIS database. Havel said that they have had discrepancies between GIS figures and plat figures because the GIS database takes flat ground coordinates from the survey and projects it onto the curved surface of the earth, which then distorts the dimensions in either area, distance or shape. He said that the State’s standard projection distorts the area of the land so GIS will not have a 100% match to the recorded document. He said that with some properties the GIS information can be off by up to 3 acres. Neuzil thanked Havel for his report.
Recessed at 10:30 a.m.; reconvened at 10:41 a.m.
DISCUSSION: SERVICE ENRICHED HOUSING PROPOSAL AT CHATHAM OAKS
Neuzil reported that the Board had a work session earlier this week on ways to work with Chatham Oaks regarding service enriched housing and stemming from that meeting, the Board is now prepared to form a committee to investigate the topic. Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan explained that following the service enriched housing proposal presentation there were 3 main questions the Board wished to discuss including the 99-year lease, the formation of a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, and governmental control by the Board of Supervisors. Sullivan said that a work group should be formed to evaluate these topics that should include 2 Supervisors, MH/DD Director Elaine Sweet, Chatham Oaks Director Mary Jean Donovan, Bob Burns, a representative from the County Attorney’s Office, and a representative from the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Johnson County. Donovan added that Gene Spaziani and a member of the Chatham Oaks Board of Directors should be on the committee as well because they’ve already done extensive work on the project. Stutsman said that Spaziani could represent NAMI. Sullivan offered to coordinate forming the committee. Harney said that although Burns would be a good resource, he has a vested interest in the project and possibly should not be on the committee. Thompson suggested he be appointed as an ex-officio member. The Board decided to appoint Thompson and Stutsman to the committee for representation and formally appoint committee members at an upcoming formal meeting.
DISCUSSION: PROPOSAL FOR AGREEMENT FOR USE OF POOR FARM HISTORICAL SITE
Thompson explained that she and Lehman met with the Historical Society regarding an agreement for preservation of the County Poor Farm to draft an alternative lease agreement to what they proposed. She said that Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell suggested bringing the questions on what should be included in the final document to the whole Board for discussion. She said the first proposal suggested setting aside proceeds from sale of other parts of the County Farm property to be used for development of the Poor Farm site. The majority of the Board decided not to support the proposal. Stutsman said that the Board should have the flexibility to donate those funds, but should not be required to. Neuzil said that this is a viable funding stream to use to make this area a viable tourism center and designating the funds would encourage the process to move forward faster. Thompson said that designating these funds but not selling the land could hold up the process and designating the funds could also decrease grant funding that would otherwise be available.
Thompson said that the second question for the Board is what controls they are willing to place on development in the area. For example, saying that developments in the area must restrict their use of pesticides if the Society develops the cemetery. Stutsman asked if that would prevent someone from farming the area. Thompson said that the Board could have Conservation look into turning the land into a prairie. Neuzil said that there is only a small section currently designated for development so he does not see why this would be a large issue. Thompson said that the language proposed said that the Board would restrict any future uses of the rest of the County Farm property that were consistent with the uses that the Historical Society was trying to develop with their portion of the land. Stutsman said that then the Historical Society would decide how to develop the land. Thompson replied that they would give the Board a plan to approve. The Board agreed not to support this proposal currently.
Thompson asked what the Board commitment is to preventing further deterioration of the buildings. She said that the Historical Society would like $1 million over the next 10 years, but regardless of what is decided on funding the Board does own the buildings and must preserve them in some way. She asked to what extent the Board is willing to preserve the buildings. Neuzil said that it will be difficult to preserve the buildings without the funding stream earlier mentioned unless they choose to use General Fund monies. Thompson replied that the County has used General Fund monies previously through Facilities. She said in their meeting they discuss a system where the Society would meet with Facilities to discuss the building’s needs to be added to the budget. Neuzil said that there is a difference between maintenance and making it a tourism destination. Stutsman said that there is a difference between preservation and preventing deterioration, which the County has been doing. She said that the Board needs to consider if they want to move to that level of maintenance. Thompson said that in the document she and Lehman are considering there would be 2 types of funding including 1) prevention of deterioration through County funding and 2) the Historical Society’s site interpretation through their budget. Stutsman asked if the Society is assuming the County will fully fund the project. Thompson replied that she and Lehman have made it clear that the County will not. Stutsman said that she would support preservation to a level but would not support fully funding this project. Thompson said that both parties need a formal arrangement so the Society can seek other funding and the County has accountability regarding the Society to prevent misunderstandings.
Stutsman asked if a governing board would be appointed for this proposal. Thompson replied that previously the Board decided against creating a separate board, but instead to consider the Society’s proposals annually. She said that it is possible to create a governing board. Stutsman said that she would support a governing board. Lehman added that they investigated liability insurance and in-kind work with departments. Stutsman explained that she’s hesitant to become more involved in this project because historical preservation was not at the top of the strategic planning goals. Neuzil said that funds will be necessary if the Board wants to support an interpretation center or trail head along with the investment in the buildings themselves. Neuzil said that even starting the process by getting a plan in place to make sure the site does not deteriorate further is positive. Thompson added that by receiving an annual plan the Board may see more clearly what the Historical Society has in mind and may feel differently about funding it.
Harney questioned including the land up to Slothower Road that was not included in the original plan because it can be used in many other ways. Thompson replied that the Society sees that piece of land as the trailhead for the park. Harney said that the land should be part of the park instead then. Lehman explained that they are asking for consideration for some time in the future if not now, so that the Board does not designate those areas for some other purpose. Thompson asked if the Board wants to reduce the land in the proposal which currently is 35 acres including the cemetery and the proposed trailhead. Lehman and Harney agreed that they did not wish to include the land for the trailhead even though it is included in what Johnson County Council of Governments Executive Director Jeff Davidson proposed. County Attorney J. Patrick White explained that the Board approved the plan but it can be changed. Thompson said that having a trailhead there would provide parking for both the trail and the Poor Farm facilities. She added that the parks department could maintain a trailhead because the Society would not have the resources. Lehman said that the Historical Society wants to know if there is a future for this project. Stutsman said that she has no problems developing the resource, but she is concerned with the County dollars needed. Thompson said that she and Lehman have direction to draft a document, which they will then present to the Board at a future meeting.
MINUTES RECEIVED: EAST CENTRAL IOWA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR MARCH 25, 2004
The Board received the East Central Iowa Council of Governments minutes from March 25, 2004 which will be placed on file.
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Thompson attended the MECCA Board meeting, and the Resource Conservation and Development meeting. She added that a Swisher-Cedar Rapids Fringe Area Agreement is scheduled for May 28, 2004.
Lehman attended Deputy Treasurer Deb Jensen’s retirement party, and the service enriched housing work session. He mentioned that he’s also had several calls regarding dust control so Secondary Roads is planning on applying the calcium chloride a few weeks earlier this year.
Stutsman attended an Empowerment Board meeting, a resident’s utility easement meeting, and a Chamber of Commerce Health and Human Services Legislative Committee meeting.
Harney attended the Chamber Business P.M., service enriched housing work session, GIS Policy Committee meeting, a Secondary Roads State distribution fund meeting, a resident’s utility easement meeting, an Emergency Management meeting, and spoke with Shueyville Mayor Pat Murphy and Secondary Roads regarding the State vacated road. He said that he will attend a work session with Shueyville Council members regarding this issue on May 10, 2004.
Neuzil attended the Coralville Chamber of Commerce meeting, a GIS Policy Committee meeting, the Sheep Producers lamb banquet, and held a Listening Post. He reported that the North Corridor Elementary School groundbreaking ceremony is April 29, 2004 at 1:30 p.m., and there will be a retirement party for Physical Plant employee James Shulista at 2:00 p.m. on April 29, 2004.
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES FROM THE PUBLIC
Reverend Bob Welsh said that the County Attorney previously questioned whether the Board must have an RFP proposal to investigate different developers for the service enriched housing project. He encouraged the Board to pursue that option. Welsh suggested having the work group investigate different locations for the housing project because as more apartments are being built, there may be properties available that could be adapted for this type of housing. He suggested asking for community proposals on how to meet the need.
Eve Casserly informed the Board that AARP is sponsoring a Board of Supervisors candidate forum from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. on May 2nd, 2004. She said that the Johnson County Fair Organization in co-sponsoring with the ICLU a town meeting to discuss jail issues, alternatives, and related policies on May 12th from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Coralville library. Panelists will include Professor John Stratton, Professor John Neff, White, and the 3 County Sheriff candidates.
Sherry Christoffer addressed the Board regarding service animals which assist people with disabilities to achieve greater independence. She said that the lack of community education regarding service dogs can create barriers to access and acceptance of the specially trained animals. She explained that she will be receiving a new seizure response dog to replace the one she lost due to interference. She asked what the Board of Supervisors will do to follow the law in order to guarantee her seizure response dog can stay with her as trained while she is being treated in an ambulance for an epileptic seizure.
Adjourned at 11:31 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Kate Darnold, Recording Secretary