MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DECEMBER 30, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:25 a.m. Members present were: Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson; absent: Pat Harney.
GIS COORDINATOR RICK HAVEL: LETTER OF COMMITMENT TO THE CENTRAL GIS DATA REPOSITORY
GIS Coordinator Rick Havel said that last fall the Iowa Local Government Innovation Fund awarded the Iowa Counties Information Technology Organization (ICT Organization) an $89,000 grant to assist in the development of a central GIS data repository. The current scope of the repository is two fold; one to create a central location for the posting and storage of the digital GIS data, and to facilitate the redistribution of the GIS data via controlled, secure access to specific local governments. The data would be available to local emergency management personnel and communication/dispatch centers equipped for computer aided dispatch. Havel said another benefit of the repository is to develop and enhance working relationships among local governments throughout the State. Havel said the future scope of the repository would be all of the GIS data that local governments are willing to share. The data would be available to the most accurate GIS data available through the secure network. Havel said many counties have expressed interest in regard to the repository including, but not limited to, Black Hawk, Cerro Gordo, Carroll, Harrison, Jasper, Johnson, Linn, and Mahaska. Interest by other counties has also been shown but they prefer to wait until after more development of the system has taken place. Havel said the Local Government Innovation Fund is requesting letters of intent from those counties interested in participating in the repository. These letters of commitment would help ensure the longevity of support for the project. Havel said that on December 21, 2004 the GIS Policy Committee approved a motion to supply the LGIF with a letter of commitment that includes in-kind support and a yearly $500 allotment to begin in FY 07. Havel said his recommendation is that the Board review the letter and approve this commitment to the fund. Stutsman asked Neuzil if he had any questions as he seemed to have interest in GIS this morning contrary to what had previously been agreed. Neuzil said he had no questions and that the Board would take time to review the letter and the issue would be placed on next week’s agenda.
Interim County Engineer Al Miller said that over a year ago the County began discussions with Coralville and North Liberty to discuss funding of the 12th Avenue project where the new school will go in. Miller said that out of those discussions a 28E agreement was developed that would cover the design of the project and project development to this point. Miller said in the current 28E agreement Coralville will be responsible for 44% of all claims with regard to design. North Liberty will be responsible for 12% and Johnson County will be responsible for 44% which amounts to claims up to $100,000. Miller said the total design of this project came in at around $230,000. After the 28E agreement was put in place there was discussion as far as a funding agreement for the construction of the project. Miller said Thompson and Harney were the lead negotiators for Johnson County. Miller said the current construction estimate is $2,073,000. Coralville has received a grant through JCCOG for $1,000,000. Johnson County received a Federal grant for enhancement funding for $132,000. After grants there is still $941,000 to be paid. Miller said it was agreed that North Liberty would be responsible for 5% of the remaining cost or about $47,000. There were also assessments to property owners along the project that amounted to $415,900. The remainder is $478,000 to be split between Coralville and Johnson County. Miller said today’s amount is based upon a revised construction estimate, which is approximately $220,000 above the original cost estimate. Miller explained that the original cost estimate did not include any estimate for right-of-way costs, which are currently estimated at $90,000. The rest of the difference can be accounted for by the increase in construction costs. Miller said as of present Johnson County’s portion will be $239,000, the same as Coralville, which is $110,000 more than was previously discussed. Miller said the Board needs to agree to the final terms of the agreement so that Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell as well as the Coralville Attorney can write up the final funding agreement.
Stutsman asked if the County and Coralville are paying the same amount. Miller said they agreed to split the remainder 50/50 after all of the deductions are made. Thompson said the Federal money will be deducted before splitting the costs among the City and the County. Stutsman said that the principle is that this road will soon be annexed into Coralville and she doesn’t understand why the County is paying the same as Coralville for this particular road. Stutsman said she thought the County had originally agreed to $100,000 and was not aware that there would be revised estimates that would raise the cost. Thompson said that if you look at the other amounts, Coralville contributed $1,000,000 in Federal money and the County only contributed $132,000 and in terms of assessments, Coralville already had some assessments in place. Stutsman said the County had never had the kind of agreement to pay for a road that was to be annexed into another entity and that she feels the $100,000 was pretty generous. Miller said the $100,000 was agreed to and that the County has since negotiated in good faith to split the remainder portion. Stutsman asked what the School District’s portion is for this project. Coralville City Manager Kelly Hayworth answered that the School District will be paying $85,555. Stutsman said no budgeting had been done on the Board’s part as this had been thrown upon them when the bond issue passed. Miller said when the budgeting was done for ‘05 there were no funding agreements so it was not specifically budgeted for. Miller said $71,000 has already been paid toward the design and depending on how the year comes out they need to ask the Board for a transfer to cover the remainder of the money. Stutsman said that means another project isn’t getting done. Miller replied that in theory the money is not being spent on another project. Lehman said they would have to tax to replace that money to continue regularly scheduled road plan.
Neuzil said one question is what will the impact on some of the residents be? Hayworth said the 28E signed by the City and the County addresses additional costs beyond the initial $100,000 and would be negotiated based on the percentages. Hayworth said that there are 35 parcels involved in the 12th Avenue Project. It was agreed that these parcels would have a 15% assessment. Thirty-two parcels have returned agreements to the City. Hayworth said several of the parcels are developers who are paying the full cost of the assessment, not the 15% reduced. Hayworth said two of the three remaining agreements are from people who are living out of state. Stutsman asked if the 28E agreement an open checkbook to the project? Hayworth said that Section 8 of the agreement states that the Board would have to revisit actual construction costs for the project which would be negotiated in good faith. Thompson said that the agreement the Board has to make now is more open and based on a more accurate estimate, however the actual cost that the County will pay is based on the actual cost of the project. Hayworth said if the bids are less than estimated the cost for the County will go down.
Lehman said that when the school bond passed the road needed to be built and they could look at it as an opportunity for development in that area that could bring the County greater revenue. Lehman said the real concern was for County residents that would become Coralville residents and the unexpected money they would have to pay out of their pockets. Hayworth said the whole issue came down to the County residents that lived along the road that were going to have to pay significant assessments. Lehman said the other option for the residents would have been to be annexed into Coralville and possibly face 100% of the costs. Thompson said that at the last meeting of the small committee it was agreed that Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell and the Coralville Attorney would work on the 28E Agreement and now they are ready to do it but they need to know the terms. Thompson said today’s action needs to be setting the terms for the 28E, but that in the original agreement right-of-way costs had never been discussed. Thompson pointed out that when the right-of-way costs were inquired about the Board was told the costs would be minimal, and Thompson feels an agreement where the County does not share in the right-of-way costs would be more acceptable. Hayworth said as part of the agreement to get the payment down to 15% the property owners would donate their temporary easements, which most have done. Hayworth said temporary construction easements are not going to be paid for as part of the cost of the project. However, when grading is done on private property trees over ten inches in diameter will need to be replaced. Thompson asked if Fausett would be willing to consider a 28E agreement where the County did not participate in sharing the right-of-way costs. Fausett asked why the County would not be participating. Thompson explained that in the beginning of the process the County was told the right-of-way costs would only be a few thousand and in the new estimate the cost is around $90,000 which is considerably more than the County was lead to expect. Hayworth asked if Thompson was wanting the right-of-way costs to be deducted and then apply the formula for figuring the remaining amount owed. Fausett said one of the comments Stutsman had made was that the County would be paying the same as Coralville which is not true because the City would be paying $1,000,000 and although the money comes from a Federal grant that money could have been put else where. Fausett said he would not be happy about taking the right-of-way costs but that decision is up to the Council and he can take the new proposal back to them. Hayworth said he thought the objective was to solve the funding issues however possible, as there are agreements with the property owners based on all of this working out. Hayworth also pointed out that if the bids are good there might not even be a need to address this issue.
Thompson said another factor is the engineering. Hayworth said the City cannot perform things like surveying and construction staking because they don’t have licensed persons to perform those functions. Thompson asked if they would be willing to do the portions they are licensed to do in house so that costs could be reduced? Hayworth said they will do as much as they possibly can. Thompson asked if in the 28E they could put that Coralville will bear the costs of engineering that can be done in house. Miller said they’ve received a bid to design the project and perform inspection and survey work and the amount to be paid would be based on the actual amount that was billed. Hayworth said that between Miller and the Coralville City Engineer they could take those agreements and figure it out before the 28E is finalized.
Fausett said the problem is that the road needs to be built. He said that if the project is not started soon, the road will not be ready when the school is opened. Fausett pointed out that the project was not the County or the City’s to begin with and the School Board is working with them as much as possible to get this project under way. Lehman said he applauds the efforts of all involved but that he does not want to see the Board in a situation where they have an open checkbook for this project. Stutsman agreed. Thompson said that if they could agree to two terms; the right-of-way costs being paid by Coralville, and some of the engineering costs being done in house at Coralville at no cost to the County, then the amount the County would be paying would be closer to the original estimate. Thompson said that in the beginning the County paid about $100,000 and thought they would have to pay about $27,865 more and the new estimate comes to $139,000 for the County. Thompson thought that by making these two adjustments the estimate would come back down closer to the original estimate. Hayworth said the change in right-of-way payment would save the County about $45,000. Hayworth said the bid date is in February and that they need to have a certification to the State that they have all of the right-of-way purchased. The attorneys are working to make sure that all of the documents are in from the individuals so that the certification can be made to the State.
Thompson suggested a straw poll to decide if they were willing to ask Chappell and the Coralville Attorney to draft a 28E agreement with the new terms in it. The second step would take place in January when the 28E agreement comes to the Board for a vote. Stutsman asked if any Board members would be willing to no more than $139,000. Lehman said that is the maximum amount and by doing that the County could be paying more than they need to if right-of-way issues are settled. Stutsman said the problem is that they do not know the costs of the engineering and they weren’t sure if the right-of-way costs had been settled. Miller said the right-of-way costs have been settled. Stutsman said she was concerned that there weren’t definitive numbers on some things and that it is just an open-ended bill. Miller said they do know what the costs of engineering will be and that they will only be reduced by the amount of work that Coralville can do. Miller said they have bids on the work, and that the numbers have been nailed down, so they are looking at a maximum number right now. There really is no way to get around the fact that the project numbers are somewhat open-ended because they are based on final construction costs. Stutsman said the only way to get around that fact is to put a designated amount in the agreement. With a designated amount the Board would know what exactly their responsibility would be and there would be no surprises at the end of the project. Miller said he would suggest that, after reviewing the detailed estimates, Coralville and the Johnson County should share in the risk of the project and if the costs come in less then both entities would share that reduction equally.
Stutsman asked why the County should share in the risks because the road will not belong to the County when the project is finished. Miller said that in his opinion it would be advantageous because there is a good chance that costs will come out less than estimated. Hayworth said he understands Stutsman’s concerns but that they had entered negotiations in good faith and that the Council’s policy was never to allow for 15% assessments. Hayworth said they entered into all of these agreements with the property owners under that assumption in good faith. Lehman said that if the project were to be done on it’s own without the school driving it the costs would have been much greater and the County would have been paying a lot more or the cost. Stutsman said they would not have been, as the cost would fall to the taxpayers. Fausett said it would have cost the citizens of Johnson County more. Hayworth said it would not have cost as much because they would not have used all of the grant funds for this particular project. Thompson said the bottom line is that in the fall there will be children walking to school along that road and it is important that they are safe. Fausett said he doesn’t think the Council will go along with the County paying $130,000 and the City paying the rest. Stutsman said that the City was going to receive the bulk of the tax benefits from the additional development. Fausett said that the County will also receive benefits as they receive tax benefits from every citizen in Coralville. Stutsman said that was true but that those benefits don’t go to the Road Fund. Fausett said that is the County’s problems and not the problems of the City.
Thompson asked if they could agree to have Chappell and the Coralville Attorney draft a 28E agreement with the new terms that way they could actually have something to discuss and have a chance to study it. Neuzil said if there was a proposal they could bring the proposal back to the Board for review. Thompson said that Chappell was not present and asked if Miller is clear on the language. Miller said they were there today to agree on terms so that Chappell could begin to write the agreement. Stutsman asked if the area was going to be TIF’d. Hayworth said the area is not TIF’d. Stutsman asked if there are future plans to TIF the area. Hayworth said on the rear of the properties, not up to 12th Avenue there are some industrial and commercial properties adjacent to the Research Park that will TIF’d be in those areas. Lehman asked what the timetable of annexation is. Hayworth said all of the paper work has been signed and the process will take about two and a half months. Lehman said the Zoning staff want to be aware of the timing.
Stutsman asked why the School District couldn’t include the cost of the road in their bond issue. County Attorney J. Patrick White said the District could have but chose not to. Thompson said the School District would not be able to do a separate new bond issue for this specific purpose. Thompson said they could have included it. Neuzil said the Solon School District included it in their bond. White said he has been a critic of the School District ever since this happened. He said that this is at least the second time they have sited schools and then gone to other entities to ask for help in solving problems when they could have been the principle problem solver to start by providing funding through their bond issue. White said this is the first time the County has been involved and when they got started with the 28E agreement on design and consultant fees he told Chappell that this is contrary to anything the County has ever done. White said this isn’t a bad thing, it is just different and they need to be sure that the whole Board wants to do this. White said Chappell said that Thompson had said all of this was true but that this was for the kids and that the County needs to pitch in and make the area safe for them regardless of how the County got into this situation. White said this 28E agreement would be simpler than the consultant fees because it is simply cost sharing of a project that Coralville is going to supervise. He said that when the Board entered into the 28E agreement they committed themselves to negotiate in good faith. He explained that the County knew there would be more costs and adopted a 50/50 share on the consultant fee so it is not a surprise to see Hayworth and Fausett suggesting to use the same agreement for the project itself. White pointed out that the Board is not obligated to that formula but they are obligated to negotiate in good faith for some share of the construction costs.
White said that that time is of the essence and the project needs to begin as soon as the ground thaws. Hayworth said that finalizing plans not only helps from a construction standpoint but also from a bidding stand point. White asked when the bid date is. Hayworth said it has been moved to February. Stutsman said the School District is applying to build a junior high and asked if that plan was going to follow the same guidelines. White said it will be in the same location, and the high school hasn’t been sited yet. White said he has been badgering the School District for ten or fifteen years to join JCCOG where the transportation system is planned but they have not done so as of yet. White said School Board representatives should be present at the decision making process of the transit system and they are not. Fausett said the junior high is not going to be problem because of the location they have for it, but the high school could be a problem. Hayworth said that the high school could be a big issue because the School Board is looking for about 60 acres for that campus. Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne suggested this issue be discussed at the next Joint Cities meeting. Hayworth said that it is a good point because land may be cheaper the farther out they go but the cost of building roads and other infrastructure might offset that. Thompson said it has been the School Board’s practice to get the Bond Issue passed on the projected cost of the school before selecting a site so these costs tend to get overlooked. Thompson thought it would be a good idea to discuss this in a meeting such as that.
DISCUSSION: PARCEL EXHIBITS OF THE COUNTY POOR FARM
Neuzil said there were changes made to the parcel exhibits of the County Poor Farm after discussion at a previous meeting and there is now a new proposal to be taken back to the Committee. Thompson said she was out at the site yesterday and drove around the cemetery. Thompson explained that on the map was the six acres that were designated. The eastern boundary is about half way between the farthest driveway at Chatham Oaks and the barn. The western boundary is enough to make it six acres. From there on the path that has been mowed it goes twenty feet wide south to the cemetery. The club shaped portion is a fence line that already exists. Thompson said there could be a legal description that says follow the fence line. This is a piece of land that will allow for a legal description to be put into the 28E agreement that will come to the Board for a future vote. Lehman said this gives the Historical Society something for the grant proposal. He said that this is a bare minimum allotment that could be expanded later but it was the consensus of the Board that they didn’t want to move too far too fast. Thompson said that the Historical Society had mentioned that they wanted to do a little farm plot with horses or something and by looking at this area it would be big enough to do so. Thompson said if in the future the Society wanted to have a parking lot or even build a building there would be room to do that. Lehman said they could also use demonstration plots outside of the proposed boundaries if they wanted to. Thompson said the draft says the Society will have to present to the Board their plan for what they intend to do so the Board will have a chance to review those plans at budget time each year. Thompson assured Stutsman that they tried to have no surprises. Stutsman said that was good but asked who was going to be responsible for the maintenance of the area. Thompson said all of that is in the agreement. Lehman said Chatham Oaks is currently taking care of the grounds. Thompson said that she doesn’t think they have specified how it was going to be done only that it would be proposed each year. Stutsman said it would be a mutual agreement then. Thompson explained that if a building needs to be done then the Society can come in and say they want to pay to have it done, or the County can direct Facilities Director David Kempf to do it, that way it is a partnership. Thompson said they could have a straw poll. White said they could wait for a formal vote but what they need at this point is a legal description to put into the management agreement that will be presented to the Board at a later date. Neuzil said he is fine with moving ahead as long as there is the ability to add more land to the site beyond the boarders that are currently provided if the question were to come up in the future. White asked if the Historical Society has received a copy of the new proposal and what they were thinking about it. Thompson said that she thought the Society understood from last week what the Board was leaning toward. Neuzil said the proposal will go back to the Committee process to see what they think. Thompson pointed out that the Committee will have to see the proposal because they have to sign the agreement.
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Stutsman said that Compensation Board Member Pat Vunderink inquired about meeting with the Supervisors prior to the Compensation Board meeting. Neuzil said that Sullivan is putting together an information packet for that Commission.
Lehman thanked Thompson for her service on the Board of Supervisors. Stutsman agreed.
Thompson said that she has appreciated working with all of the Board members.
Neuzil presented Thompson with a memorial gavel thanking her for her service. Neuzil had a Listening Post at the Senior Center on December 29, 2004. He will have a Listening Post at the Administration Building on January 6, 2004 at 11:30. Neuzil thanked the Board for working with him as Chair during the past year.
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES FROM THE PUBLIC
Carol Spaziani asked when the next Joint Meeting with the City, County, and School Board is going to be held. The Board said the tentative date is January 19, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. at the Administration Building. Spaziani also thanked Carol Thompson for her years of service and leadership.
Adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary