MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JUNE 3, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:45 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
SEATS DIRECTOR TOM BRASE: 28E AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LONE TREE AND JOHNSON COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; 28E AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOLON AND JOHNSON COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; 28E AGREEMENT RENEWAL BETWEEN THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS AND JOHNSON COUNTY FOR TRANSIT SERVICES; EAST CENTRAL IOWA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (ECICOG) PURCHASE OF SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT LEASE CONTRACTS BETWEEN ECICOG AND JOHNSON COUNTY; AND APPOINTMENTS TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY SEATS PARATRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR A TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2006
Neuzil explained that the first item is a FY04 28E agreement between the City of Lone Tree and Johnson County for transportation services by SEATS at a cost of $1.50 per service unit and $.50 per meal delivery and a fixed amount of $6,240.00 for 2 additional days. SEATS Director Tom Brase said that these services were funded through the Heritage Area on Aging in Fiscal Year 2003. He explained that Heritage stopped contracting with the County and instead is funding a portion of the program through the food kitchens instead. Heritage also reduced their funding to cover only $.50 of the per service cost. As a result, the FY05 Lone Tree program contract includes a flat fee of $6,240.00 to cover 2 additional days of service, $.50 per meal delivery, a $1.00 service fee, and $.50 per mile for deliveries leaving Johnson County. Brase explained that SEATS still provides the residents transportation to the nutritional site or to have meals delivered to their home.
Neuzil said that the next item is a 28E agreement between the City of Solon and Johnson County for transportation services by SEATS at a cost of $1.50 per service unit. Brase explained that similar to Lone Tree, Heritage no longer fully funds this service at Solon as well. He said that SEATS receives $1.50 per trip; Solon pays $1.00, SEATS charges $.50 to users and Heritage pays the meal charge through the kitchen. He said that Solon’s program utilizes SEATS 3 days a week, covering the remaining 2 days through church groups.
Neuzil said that the next item is a 28E agreement renewal with the City of University Heights for transit services. Brase explained that the County currently contracts with Iowa City, Coralville and University Heights to provide the Federally mandated ADA Paratransit Service, which requires cities with a fixed route transit service to also provide a paratransit for individuals with disabilities that cannot use a fixed route. This agreement renewal allows University Heights to provide that service to their residents using Johnson County SEATS for $7,728.84. Thompson asked how Brase arrived at this figure since the trips are so infrequent. Brase replied they built on the contracted amount and built on a cost per trip in order to ensure SEATS meets their cost.
Neuzil explained that the next item is a contract with ECICOG for purchase of service and equipment lease. Brase said that these contracts were approved by the County Attorney’s Office before ECICOG changed some of the language from shall to may. He explained that beyond the previously mentioned services, SEATS also provides services for rural users through the ECICOG contracts. He said that this contract will also allow the County to receive State and Federal funding through ECICOG. He said that the equipment included in the contract includes the vehicles and GPS used in the provision of services. Brase said additions to this year’s contract include direction for participation in a regional Intelligent Transportation Service, which may require service data, meeting attendance, documentation of operations and administrative procedures, assessment of available equipment, any additional information necessary to determine the benefits, costs, or implementation requirements of the regional program and will agree to participate in the program developed by the ECICOG Board. He said that a possible grant through the Federal Government and subsidized by United Way would allow SEATS to move forward with global tracking information already on hand. Brase said that he feels that moving forward with an ITS program is the correct decision, especially when the cost is low. The Board agreed to put the various SEATS contracts on a future formal agenda for approval.
The Board agreed to consider appointing Chris Reynolds and reappointing Lynne Stamus, William Gorman, Dave Purdy Marc Rahe, and Nancy Snider Overstreet to the Johnson County SEATS Paratransit Advisory Committee for a term ending June 30, 2006 at a future formal meeting.
MENTAL HEALTH/DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES DIRECTOR ELAINE SWEET: 28E AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF IOWA JUDICIAL BRANCH FOR JUDICIAL REFEREE SERVICES
Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Elaine Sweet said that the State cut the funding for their Judicial Branch’s Judicial Referee Services in 2001 but the Board agreed to restore referee services in Johnson County by negotiating a 28E agreement with the Judicial Branch in Fiscal Year 2002. She said that the initiative continues to meet its goal of serving individuals with dignity and respect by intervening early and reducing the frequency, lengths of stay, and the cost of inpatient hospitalizations. She said that the FY05 MH/DD budget includes $20,000 for this agreement. She read a letter from Chief Judge David Remley requesting that Johnson County renew its agreement for hospitalization referee services due to its tremendous assistance to the 6th Judicial District, which is in dire need of additional resources. The letter stated that the agreement allows the District to hold hospitalization hearings 3 days a week instead of 2, which allows patients to have earlier hearings resulting in shorter hospital stays and beginning treatments sooner.
Mental Health Advocate Veda Higgins explained that prior to this agreement, hearings were held only on Monday and Tuesday as allowed by the district court judges’ schedules. A patient hospitalized early in the week could have to wait almost a week for a hearing, which delayed treatment and lengthened the hospital stay. The agreement allows a third day of hearing to be held on Friday. Last year, Higgins explained, there were 124 hearings held on Fridays, which would have been delayed until the next week without the additional day. She said that a judge holds a hearing on Monday, a referee holds Tuesday’s hearings and a second referee holds Friday’s hearings.
Social Worker Scott Regenwether said that he works with legal settlement and billing. He explained that before the agreement, holding patients up to a week without a hearing caused Johnson County additional expense by finding additional out of county beds once the hospital reached its limit. Stutsman said that there is added cost in transportation for out of county placements as well. Stutsman asked if the contract rate is fair. Sweet replied that she has not received a request for an increase. Stutsman said that she supports the agreement even though she views the program as the State’s responsibility. The Board agreed to place the FY 2005 28E Agreement for referee services on a future formal agenda.
DEPUTY AUDITOR DANA ASCHENBRENNER: AUTHORIZING THE JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH EIDE BAILLY LLP FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004-2008; REQUEST TO SUSPEND ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK PROCESSING FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 1, 2004
Deputy Auditor Dana Aschenbrenner explained that the Auditor’s Office requested proposals from 9 firms for independent audit services and received 2 proposals from Clifton Gunderson and from the current auditor, Eide Bailly. He recommended the Board award Eide Bailly the contract for audit services with an agreement spanning the period from 2004-2008. He said that Eide Bailly was the lowest bidder and has performed very well in the past. Lehman said that Eide Bailly also offered more hours for a lower cost. Stutsman said that the Board has previously given preference to local businesses in awarding contracts, so that may be an issue to consider. Harney said that although there is a $7,000 difference, it is often beneficial to switch auditors to double check the County’s past history. Lehman asked if there will be additional cost if the companies exceed their estimated hours. Aschenbrenner replied that there is generally additional cost accrued. The Board agreed to place the item on the next formal agenda for consideration.
Aschenbrenner explained that the Auditor’s Office is requesting that accounts payable processing be suspended the week of July 1, 2004 due to the implementation of the new accounting system at the same time. He said that processing could be difficult because many departments have not yet become acquainted with submitting claims using the new system and account numbers. He added that the new account numbers bring the County in line with the State chart of accounts. Suspending processing would allow an easier transition and allow departments to get acquainted with the system. Lehman asked if there will be problems with vendors if they suspend the process. Aschenbrenner replied that he has informed departments of the proposed action in order to give them time to submit claims in time to meet their deadlines. The Board agreed to place the item on the next formal agenda.
Recessed at 10:16 a.m.; reconvened at 10:27 a.m.
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATOR LORA SHRAMEK: UPDATED HOLIDAY POLICY FOR JOHNSON COUNTY EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK ADDING SECOND PERSONAL DAY EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek explained that during collective bargaining the Administrative Unit was awarded a second personal holiday. Since historically the employee handbook has matched the Administrative Unit benefits, Shramek said that a second personal holiday should be effective July 1, 2004 for non-bargaining employees as well. She said that they also added language regarding the current practice in administering personal days, stating that they must be used in the given calendar year it was received and not paid upon termination. The handbook also recognizes exceptions for the County Attorney’s Office, Department of Human Services, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Ambulance Department. Thompson asked if the Board designates the floating Christmas holiday for department heads. Shramek replied that although departments are not required to, most follow the Board’s decision. Harney asked if the County Attorney holiday is an exchange rather than an additional day. Shramek agreed. Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness explained that the Attorney’s Office chooses a day that is consistent with the court schedule rather than matching the County or the court. The Board agreed to place the updated holiday policy on a future formal agenda for approval.
ASSISTANT COUNTY ENGINEER AL MILLER: RIGHT-OF-WAY contract FOR A GRADING AND PAVING PROJECT ON SAND ROAD WITH DANIEL J. FOUNTAIN FOR $5,750
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller explained that approving a right-of-way contract for the grading and paving project on Sand Road with Daniel J. Fountain is one of the last 3 remaining right-of-way contracts for the Sand Road project. He said that the final property acquisition will take place through condemnation in July. The Board agreed to place the contract on a future formal agenda for approval.
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MIKE SULLIVAN: RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH PROPOSAL TO DISPOSE OF AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY CONSISTING OF PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY POOR FARM; AND RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO DISPOSE OF AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY CONSISTING OF PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY POOR FARM
Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan said that they need to begin the formal process of disposing of land for permanent and sanitary sewer easements for the S & J Development proposal over portions of the County Farm. He said that the developer has agreed to pay the cost for the appraisal, proposed easement, and the market value for the easements. In addition, the developer has agreed to pay to upgrade a limiting section of the existing sanitary sewer line to meet the Board’s capacity concerns. Sullivan explained that according to Iowa Code, the Board must set forth a proposal to convey the easements in a resolution. Secondly, the Board must set a public hearing and authorize the Auditor’s Office to publish the notice. He said that if the Board wants to move ahead, they can then approve the proposal with a second resolution. Lehman said that his main concern was devaluing County land by decreasing capacity for future County developments, but that concern has been addressed. Sullivan explained that there will be 2 resolutions next week; one resolution will set the public hearing and one setting forth the proposal. The Board agreed to place the resolutions on the next formal meeting’s agenda.
Stutsman presented the 3 Communications Committee’s recommendations for the new County logo for consideration. She said that 2 of the logos were designed by graphic design student Megan McCright and the third was designed by North Liberty resident Dan VanWoert. Stutsman explained that the new logo idea came out of discussion on branding in both public and private sectors to allow individuals to easily identify Johnson County Government. She said that the Committee suggested either the Board make the decision or make the logos available at the County Fair for public comment. Neuzil said that the Auditor’s Office has a mock vote and they may be able to add this to the ballot. Lehman said that there is usually a good mix of residents that vote in the mock election. Neuzil said that the Communications Committee is planning on transitioning to the new logo as old documents are used. The Board referred the matter back to the Communications Committee to work on adding the logo to the mock election ballot at the County Fair and the County webpage.
MINUTES RECEIVED: HAWKEYE AREA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC. FOR MAY 12, 2004
Minutes were received from the Hawkeye Area Community Action Program, Inc. for May 12, 2004.
Recessed at 10:46 a.m.; reconvened at 10:50 a.m.
DISCUSSION: RETAINING OR TRANSFERRING A PORTION OF HIGHWAY 965 TO THE CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak explained that approximately a year ago, the Iowa DOT wanted to give Highway 965 back to local municipalities. Cedar Rapids was interested in assuming the maintenance of 965 from the County line to 120th Street, but some citizens were concerned. After discussion with State and local officials, Dvorak explained, they decided to investigate a fringe area agreement that would allow Cedar Rapids to maintain that portion of the road and complete any improvements as necessary. Dvorak said that JCCOG completed a study regarding the road and the future impacts of development including the intersection at 120th Street. He said that Cedar Rapids has made an agreement with the DOT for road maintenance, but the Board would like to discuss the issue.
Cedar Rapids Long Range Planning Manager Dean Wheatley said that he has been working with Planning and Zoning and Swisher officials to develop an agreement regarding Highway 965. He said that during their 30 year planning time frame, Cedar Rapids anticipates growing development pressure in that corridor, which will increase the need for improvements on that road. He explained that because the interstate exit is seen as the southern most entrance to the metro area, Cedar Rapids wants to ensure that maintenance and improvements to that road take place. He said that the entities have been working together for more than a year and Cedar Rapids is willing to continue to work together to find a solution that works for all parties involved. Lehman asked if Cedar Rapids has an annexation timetable. Wheatley replied that they do not. He said that Cedar Rapids uses voluntary annexation so there is no plan to annex the area, but they do expect demand within the 30 year development period. He added that the development may occur in Johnson County or Swisher and not involve Cedar Rapids. Wheatley said that since other entities may be involved in the development, they wanted to create a 3 party agreement to establish standards and policies for future development. Thompson said that although Swisher did not object in including the road in the fringe area agreement, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not approve the agreement because of citizen opposition. She added that the Board could approve the fringe area agreement without the road and address it at a later date, but the DOT would like an answer to the road question by July 1, 2004.
County Engineer Mike Gardner said that he has no objections with Cedar Rapids maintaining the road. He said that Cedar Rapids has made a deal to transfer the road from the State, but he does not know if the State has offered funds to cover the expense. He said that last year Secondary Roads maintained the road for the State and also a quarter of a mile of the road in Linn County. Gardner said that it is difficult to estimate the cost of one mile of road, but if the County receives funds from the State to upgrade the road, the maintenance cost would be much lower. Thompson asked Gardner to estimate the cost to upgrade the road when necessary. Gardner replied that he looked at the cost to rehabilitate the road, which would be about $250,000 to $300,000, but not to update it. Stutsman said that this is a Johnson County road and that is part of the cost of maintaining roads.
Department of Transportation District 6 Transportation Planner Lee Benfield said that the DOT entered into an agreement with the City of Cedar Rapids to transfer the road over a year ago and have agreed that the remainder of the transfer will take place on July 1, 2004. He said that following the execution of the original agreement, the DOT agreed to transfer the portion of Highway 965 from within the City limits to Tharp Road, which is 1/4 of a mile north of the county line. Benfield said that following the agreement, the DOT paid a portion of the $736,000 total to Cedar Rapids for the 3.9 miles they acquired. He said that the remaining amount will be paid for the 1.25 mile road, but he is not sure exactly what that amount is. Stutsman asked if $237,000 specified in the draft agreement as remaining, will be paid to Johnson County for maintenance of the road. Benfield replied that the DOT will follow through on their agreement to transfer the road to Cedar Rapids and then Cedar Rapids, Johnson County, and Linn County can decide how to proceed. He said that the intent of the draft agreement is to create an instantaneous transfer from Cedar Rapids to Johnson County once the City receives the road. Stutsman said that Johnson County was left out of the transfer process. Benfield replied that before Senate File 451 passed, DOT staff contacted several County Secondary Roads Departments to see whether they would like to enter into voluntary agreements to transfer roads prior to legislative transfer provided for by 451. He said that several counties chose to voluntarily transfer in order to get a better deal than provided for by File 451. Benfield said that most Secondary Roads departments did not want to take on additional mileage, and therefore did not participate. He said that in the case of Highway 965, the City of Cedar Rapids expressed an interest when the County did not, so since they knew of no reason why the DOT could not enter into an agreement to transfer the whole road to the City, they did so. He said that after the agreement was in place, the DOT became aware of the County’s concern regarding Cedar Rapids having a road in Johnson County. They then asked Cedar Rapids to discuss the issues with the County and proceed from there. Thompson clarified that the DOT held off on the transfer until the entities could get a fringe area agreement in place.
Harney said that when this issue arose he did not believe Cedar Rapids should hold the road because they do not have any annexed property within Johnson County. He said that when discussing the issue last year, DOT officials informed the Board that the decision could be postponed for a later date. He said that had he known the road would have been transferred to Johnson County, he does not believe the matter would have gone this far. Harney said he was not aware that there was already an agreement to turn the road over to Cedar Rapids. He said that when the DOT informed the Board that they could delay the decision, he did not realize there was an agreement to transfer the road to Cedar Rapids if they did not make the decision. Harney said that this should be a Johnson County road and many of the citizens in the area do not want this road to transfer to Cedar Rapids because it would complicate development requests. Harney said that he understands why Cedar Rapids wants to have some say in the road because of long-term development, but he does not see any other reason for Cedar Rapids to control the road. Stutsman agreed that she understood Cedar Rapids’ interest and desire to be involved, but if Johnson County gives up jurisdiction, then Johnson County will no longer be involved either. Stutsman said that she has a responsibility to Johnson County residents to be their voice, but if Cedar Rapids has control of the road, then Johnson County residents have no voice. Stutsman said that she is willing to enter into a 28E but wants the road to stay under County control. Harney said that if the Board vacates a road, it goes back to the property owners so it would be out of line to turn the road over to an entity in another county.
Lehman said that he has concerns but wonders who can better encourage growth. He said that Cedar Rapids should annex the road if they feel that they need it. He added that Cedar Rapids will have some control over development through the fringe area agreement, but to give them control of the road without knowing the ramifications would not be appropriate at this time. He said that there is also a concern of committing dollars to this road without receiving enough funds for any improvements. Lehman said that he is not yet ready to give up ownership to Cedar Rapids. Stutsman said that by entering into an agreement there will be more room for negotiation. Lehman said that if Cedar Rapids wants the road they should take the land too, but that is 30 years away. Harney said that the County could require development specifications Cedar Rapids desires through a fringe area agreement in the meantime. Thompson said that before Cedar Rapids is ready to annex the area, the Board is likely to have to rehabilitate the road. She said that spending funds to upgrade a road that will be annexed is against Board policy. Stutsman replied that the Board just went against that policy in the case of 12th Avenue in Coralville. Thompson replied that it has always been an exception and is something the Board tries to avoid. Neuzil agreed with keeping possession of the road. Thompson said that she is willing to rely on the fringe area agreement to control how the land adjacent to the road would be used. Stutsman and Neuzil agreed that keeping control of the road will be in the best interest of the residents that live in the area. Neuzil said that Swisher would like to have flexibility if they choose to grow before Cedar Rapids does. He said that residents may be uncomfortable due to the lack of communication that has been taking place.
Stutsman said that Cedar Rapids Mayor Paul Pate wants to assure the Board that Cedar Rapids wants to work with Johnson County any way they can. Harney asked if the Board can no longer wait until July 1, 2004 to complete the transfer. Benfield said that July 1, 2004 was the target date in the agreement with Cedar Rapids. He said that because the DOT entered into an agreement with Cedar Rapids, it took Highway 965 off the list of roads subject to Senate File 451. He explained that if the DOT were to nullify the agreement, it would call into question how the road would have been treated in the File 451process. Benfield said that the DOT does not want to nullify the agreement, so they have proposed Cedar Rapids, Linn County, and Johnson County entering into an agreement to specify what will happen when Cedar Rapids receives jurisdiction from the DOT. He said that the idea of an instant transfer has been added into the draft language that he provided the Board. He added that the July 1, 2004 date is not required and the DOT is willing to give the entities involved time to create an agreement before moving ahead with the transfer.
Stutsman asked if the agreement is already in effect. Benfield replied that the agreement to transfer jurisdiction to Cedar Rapids is in effect. Stutsman asked how Cedar Rapids could enter into an agreement regarding a road in Johnson County without approval from the Board. Benfield replied that there is nothing in the Code that precludes a city from owning or managing a property outside of their corporate limits. Stutsman said that the land is not contiguous. Benfield replied that the road is contiguous though. Stutsman said that it seem logical to need approval from Johnson County in order to obtain a road in Johnson County. She said that by that reasoning, Cedar Rapids could take 965 down to Washington County then. Benfield replied that there is nothing in the law to stop them. Stutsman replied that the law is poorly written then. Benfield agreed and added that the law treats a DOT transfer to a County differently than they do to a City. He said that if the DOT enters into an agreement with a County then they are required to publish a notice in the newspaper and may also be required to hold a public hearing, but transfer to cities have no such requirement. He said that transfers to cities are approved through city council action alone. Harney asked if Johnson County can ask for the road to be transferred directly to Johnson County. Benfield replied that it would nullify the existing agreement, but the DOT does not want to deal with the issues that would bring forth. He said that they prefer to address the matter through a 28E agreement with Cedar Rapids. Harney and Stutsman agreed that they would need legal advice regarding the matter. Harney said that he does not believe the County would receive the road once it is transferred to Cedar Rapids. Stutsman said that the entities are heading towards a lawsuit in order to clarify the law. Neuzil said that the legal teams of all the entities will review the matter.
Stutsman asked if there are 3 Board members who want to investigate the agreement further. Thompson said that she is in the minority, but in reaching her position she tried to look at the good of the County as a whole instead of individuals. She said that she believes based on future cooperation in the Technology Corridor, allowing Cedar Rapids ownership of 965 is the right decision. Harney agreed that the Technology Corridor is important, but he is not ready to transfer the road. Wheatley said that Cedar Rapids has been working for over a year in good faith to work out an agreement that will be satisfactory to everyone. He said that it is not Cedar Rapids’ intention to muscle their way into Johnson County. He said that the transfer could have taken place earlier, but they’ve been trying to arrive at an agreement that will work for all entities involved. He said that the road and the fringe area agreement are tied very closely together. Wheatley said that many of the objections the Board has heard are tied to land use and the process involved in the fringe area agreement. He said that Cedar Rapids is willing to continue cooperating with the entities involved in this agreement. Stutsman thanked him, but added that although she is supportive of fringe area agreements the Board has had an experience where a city council chose to ignore the agreement in making their decisions. She said that the experience has made the Board more cautious. Wheatley agreed, saying that Cedar Rapids has had the same experience as well.
Thompson asked for clarification of the portion of the road that was included in the original transfer. Benfield said that the transfer describes the segment as Highway 965 beginning at 120th Street in Johnson County and extending north to 76th Avenue southwest in the City of Cedar Rapids, which is a length of approximately 3.93 miles. Thompson asked why Johnson County contracted with the DOT this past winter to complete road maintenance for the Johnson County portion of the road if it was in control of Cedar Rapids. Benfield replied that because of the concerns of Johnson County, the DOT only implemented part of the agreement, transferring only those portions in Linn County. Thompson asked if the transfer will occur July 1, 2004. Benfield replied that July 1, 2004 was the target date to implement the rest of the transfer. Thompson asked why the DOT cannot just implement the agreement to the County line. Benfield replied it would be possible, but that would make it more difficult for both entities to maintain their portions of the road, which is why Cedar Rapids was interested in the Johnson County portion of the road. Thompson asked if it is inefficient to maintain only their own road portions. Benfield said that if each entity can maintain only their own portions as designated with Johnson County maintaining approximately 1 mile, Linn County maintaining approximately 1/4 of a mile, and Cedar Rapids maintains the rest or the jurisdictions can implement an arrangement that makes more sense.
Harney said that the Board needs to send a letter to the DOT stating the Board’s decision. Neuzil said that they will place a letter on the formal agenda for signature after referring the matter to the County Attorney. Stutsman asked if based on the current agreement the road will be transferred to Cedar Rapids July 1, 2004. Benfield replied that the agreement provides for the transfer, but has not been fully implemented. Stutsman asked what will happen on July 1,2004 if the Board does not decide a course of action. Benfield replied that the DOT would transfer the road to Cedar Rapids on July 1, 2004 if no action was taken. Harney asked what action will be taken if the Board objects to the transfer. Stutsman said that the DOT could transfer the road regardless. Benfield said that if the Board’s goal is to gain jurisdiction of the road, then the County needs to enter into an agreement with Cedar Rapids. Stutsman said that if Cedar Rapids did not want to negotiate then there would be no recourse. Gardner asked if the County can request an extension beyond the July 1, 2004 date. Benfield replied that the DOT can be flexible, but does not want to hold the road until the winter maintenance season. He said that the agreement was signed in December 2002, so the DOT has been working on it for 18 months and the County has been involved for about a year so they would like closure. Stutsman said the Board would have rather had this discussion 18 months before. Harney said that at the first meeting, he thought the County had those months to decide without forfeiting the road. Lyness asked if the DOT needs a formal letter before slowing their action. Benfield replied that a letter would be helpful, but it does not need to be formal. Harney asked how the Board will know the DOT will not proceed with the transfer. Benfield replied that it is a matter of good faith. Thompson said that road maintenance agreements usually have a shared amount of road that is included in the agreement, but this case has no matching portion.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore said that there have been some questions that have not been answered to the Board’s satisfaction. He suggested the Board place a formal letter requesting the DOT delay transferring the road for a specific timeframe. In the meantime, Moore recommended that the Board hold a work session with Secondary Roads and Planning and Zoning staff to bring all the issues and tools together to allow the Board to make an informed decision. Moore said that this agenda limits staff in explaining how the fringe area agreement eliminates some of the residents’ concerns, so delaying the transfer would give staff and the Board time to discuss the issue further. The Board decided to hold a work session to discuss the issue with County staff and Swisher on June 29, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., and ask the Attorney’s Office to look into the matter in the meantime. The Board directed Sullivan to send a letter to the DOT asking for an extension. Benfield asked the Board to include the date they would like the agreement extended to rather than leaving the matter open.
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Lehman did a ride-along on a SEATS bus.
Thompson attended the MECCA Board Meeting, the North Liberty Recreation Center opening, and a liaison meeting with Ambulance Director Steve Spenler.
Stutsman attended the liaison meeting with Spenler, and a liaison meeting with Facilities Director David Kempf.
Harney attended an ECICOG Board of Directors meeting, the Chamber of Commerce Business P.M., the Solon Fire Fighter Breakfast, the Jail site visit, Memorial Day activities, and the liaison meeting with Kempf.
Neuzil attended Memorial Day activities. He said that ICARE and the Hills Firefighter’s will both hold a breakfast on June 6, 2004. He announced a Listening Post at the Joensy’s Restaurant in Solon on June 9, 2004 and the Spring Cleanup held every Friday and Saturday in the month of June.
Adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary