• Discussion: Secondary Roads Five-Year Construction Program
• Discussion from the Public

Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the South Slope Conference Center, 980 North Front Street, North Liberty at 5:37 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said that they have always been involved in the 5 Year Road Plan behind the scenes and now the Board has asked them to take a more up front position. Dvorak said that he will present an overview of the Land Use Plan and will then present their recommendation to the Board. Planning and Zoning recently sat down to review the Land Use Plan and what the current zonings are. Their first recommendation is the Howard R. Green Proposal. This is similar to what Secondary Roads looked at in 2003 and he added that they still support the process.

Dvorak said that the next project Planning and Zoning would like the Board to look at is Sugar Bottom Road. They are also interested in 540th Street, better known as the Cheese Factory Road. Dvorak said that they put it in because it is in an economic development area and a seal coat road. He added that the owner of the Cheese Factory approached the County to make improvements to the property. According to the commercial zoning and the Road Performance Standards improvements must be made to the road before anything can be done to the property. Dvorak explained that for this reason they are encouraging the Board to set aside money for the stretch of 540th Street to Sharon Center Road. This way as applications come in for that area they would be prepared to help pay for the improvements. Dvorak said that this would help alleviate problems of having to find money for projects once the budget is set. They are also recommending including Sharon Center Road because it goes to the growth area of the village of Sharon Center and the improvements would allow for more growth in Sharon Center.

The next project Planning and Zoning is recommending is Sandy Beach Road. He said that it was zoned residential in 1960 and the current Road Performance Standards are limiting homeowners’ rights to develop their own land.

Planning and Zoning recommends improvements to Naples Avenue because there has been some development impact off of Dane Road. This recommendation is similar to 540th Street in that they recommend that the Board begin thinking about setting aside money for improvements. Dvorak said that area residents have contacted Assistant Planner Dan Swartzendruber about cost sharing of improvements for the road. Swartzendruber said that the residents have been living just off of Dane Road and that it might be time to discuss with Iowa City some of the options. Dvorak said that he lumped the three projects on Dane, Naples, and Osage Road together.

Dvorak said that the River Junction area is zoned residential and the road is currently gravel. He said that they are requesting that the Board think about making improvements so the area can be developed at the same time.

Dvorak said that Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore has been working with the Angle Road residents and that a developer wanted to improve the land, but the Road Performance Standards are prohibitive. As of now almost all of the allowable development under the current standards has happened and to encourage any growth in the Frytown area they need to make improvements. Swartzendruber said that the thinking on paving the area is so that there would be a connection from Yoder Turnpike to Cosgrove and Angle Roads as well as out to Highway 1.

Dvorak said that the final project they are recommending is Scales Bend Road. He said that North Liberty is about to the edge of the growth area, and the land was purchased for development before the Road Performance Standards were put in place. Dvorak added the Muslim Youth Camp of America will be built in the area and will lead to some issues with the road. There is also a lot of traffic on the road due to people using the road for recreation.

Moore said that the Board needs to remember that Planning and Zoning’s recommendations are not based on engineering standards like Secondary Roads will be using. Planning and Zoning’s recommendations are based on the idea of trying to achieve the land use policies rather than the road use policies. Moore added that when the Land Use Plan was adopted in 1998 one of the main goals was to protect agricultural operations and a variety of tools have been used to achieve this. In 1960 the County adopted zoning and mass zoned 15,000 acres. In 1977 the first Land Use Plan was adopted. He said that the unfortunate thing was that from 1977-1998 the Land Use Plan was not really followed very closely. In 1979 the North Corridor Development Plan was adopted. The Right to Farm Ordinance was adopted in 1983 to try to protect agricultural operations from nuisance lawsuits. 1996 brought an update to the original North Corridor Plan and in 1998 the current Land Use Plan was adopted and remains current today.

Moore explained that the Unified Development Ordinance, the Corn Suitability Rating, the Right to Farm Ordinance, Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, fringe area agreements, Clustered Subdivision Design Ordinance, and GIS are all used to protect the lands. He explained that the Land Use Plan has many strategies built into it to make it work properly. The implementation schedule is one of the most important aspects of the Land Use Plan because it is the tool the Board of Supervisors uses to set up a time frame for accomplishing certain goals. Moore explained that there are specific development policies for agricultural/rural areas, the North Corridor, fringe areas, cities, and unincorporated villages. Moore presented a map that identifies immediate growth areas in the North Corridor, fringe areas, villages, and rural agricultural areas. Moore said that implementing ag land preservation can be challenging and that it begins with the elected decision makers. The adopted Land Use Plan needs to be followed and ordinances supporting ag preservation need to be supported. He added that the fringe area agreements need to be followed and the public needs to be educated as to what is going on to create a consensus. Moore said that Planning and Zoning’s opinion is that the Land Use Plan has been followed for the past six years. He said that in order to stay on course and continue to achieve the policies that were adopted in the Land Use Plan there has to be the appropriate infrastructure in the designated growth areas.

County Engineer Greg Parker presented handouts containing a map and a written description of the 5 Year Road Plan projects. The first sheet of the handout has a list of recommendations to the Board for additions to the 5 Year Road Plan. Parker said that the second sheet has the projects broken down into time frames. Parker explained that he will present projects for the years 2006-2010. He added that the projects have also been broken down into three sections: grade and pave projects, rehabilitation projects, and bridges and culverts. Parker explained that their goal for the project overview was to make everything as understandable as possible for anyone who is reading it. Parker said that tonight is not necessarily the right time to go over the Future Projects List, but that they could later on after the meeting. Parker said that the Future Projects List contains projects that would not have made the cut for the 5 Year Road Plan. He said that there are many reasons a project doesn’t make the cut, so this way there are plans waiting to be set in motion if a current project gets delayed. Stutsman asked if the Future Projects List can be pushed back indefinitely or if they are scheduled for year 11 and beyond. Parker said that items on the list may never take place, but that they are perceived as needing change sometime in the future.

Parker said that questions may come up, but exact design information has not been established. He said that the projects that are in the earlier years of the 5 Year Road Plan have more details about them, but the projects that are farther away have fewer details known about them at this time. Parker added that the costs shown for the 5 Year Road Plan are estimates only and will depend on which projects are chosen and for what schedule. Once the projects are finalized the figures can be more accurate. He added that one of the goals for the meeting is to try to figure out which projects the Board wants in the plan. Parker said after the 5 Year Road Plan is finalized the descriptions and maps will be placed on the County website for public review. There also might be a presentation made to the Board in late March.

Assistant County Engineer Al Miller said that the first project in FY 06 is the Sand Road grading and paving project. The project was let in January but that the bids were rejected and the re-bid is planned for late November. The second project is 540th Street grading and paving and is based on an agreement the Board has with the Twin County Dairy owners. Miller said that the project is for 650 feet as per the agreement. The third project, FY 06-C, the 12th Avenue grading and paving project, will be let in March. The County has some Federal Enhancement money for the project and that the project is a cooperative project between Coralville, North Liberty, and Johnson County.

The third project is the intersection of Sugar Bottom Road and 245th Street. Miller added that this project needs to be completed by the end of the calendar year per an agreement and has been on the program for a long time. Stutsman said that the money for the project is in escrow. Lehman asked if the estimated cost is the cost of the project. Miller said that it is the total cost. Lehman asked if the cost estimate on the 540th Street project will be shared with the Twin County Dairy. Miller said yes. Neuzil asked what happens if the Sugar Bottom Road project is not completed by the end of the year. Stutsman said that they lose the money, but that there is more to it than that because the Board publicly stated that the area needs to be upgraded so they are pretty well committed to the project.

Miller said that another project is an intersection improvement project at Derby Road and 120th Street. This is a new project that they are recommending be added due to some construction in the area. They are going to be doing a joint project with Linn County for the area. The intersection will mostly have truck traffic and the visibility at the intersection is undesirable for the trucks. By cutting down the east portion of the hill the sight visibility will be greatly increased. He added that Farm-to-Market funds are available for the project and the Quarry pays dust control for the area and will be paying for the seal coating. Stutsman asked if it is gravel now. Miller said that 120th is pavement but that Derby is gravel with calcium chloride dust control. He said that the rebuilt road will be readily able to handle the Quarry traffic. R. Sullivan said that the trucks really tear up the road. Stutsman asked if it would be embargoed. Miller said that he did not think they could shut them down, but with the new road there shouldn’t be any problems as long as it is built properly.

The next project is Highway 382 pavement rehabilitation. Miller said that it is scheduled to be let in June, but most of the construction will take place in FY06. He said that the last project under the rehabilitation projects is FY06-G which is a new project on Upper Old Highway 6. This section of highway was acquired by the County from the State and the pavement is in terrible shape. Miller said that something needs to be done or they should revert it back to rock.

Neuzil said that some of the projects have paved shoulders and some don’t. Miller said that the County is currently involved in trails planning with the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) and they are working on preparing a map of where paved shoulders are recommended. They will then follow the map for future projects. Neuzil said that there was some discussion in the past that it is worth the investment because it preserves the road and that if the cost is low, perhaps they should consider paving the shoulders of every rehabilitation project. Parker said that it is an excellent point, and from an engineering standpoint it definitely prolongs the life of the pavement. If there is not a paved shoulder, when drivers veer off the edge of the pavement if the shoulder is moist or wet the tire creates suction and eventually pockets are created and water can settle into these areas. He said that it is an excellent idea from an engineering standpoint to pave the shoulders, if all of the drainage issues are also remedied. Parker said that from a safety standpoint if the shoulder is paved and someone veers off there is a better recovery because they are not veering onto a soft shoulder. He said that there are definite safety and engineering benefits as well as other benefits such as an area for bikes to ride.

Neuzil said that when the details are hammered out on projects he would like to see cost estimates of adding paved shoulder so they can decide if it is worthwhile to do it. Lehman added that if the shoulder is paved it also helps farm equipment because then the tires aren’t running on the soft shoulder and creating suction each time they go by. Parker said that it helps from a maintenance standpoint as well because then they don’t have to continually add rock to the shoulder. Stutsman said that she is bothered by half paved shoulders and would like there to be more coordination. Miller said that as an engineer he would always like to see paved shoulders, but there is a cost to it. He said the trails information will provide clues as to where the shoulders really should be paved, and that he recommends that whenever funds are possible they pave the shoulders on any project they are doing. Harney agreed that paving shoulders is a good idea, but that they should make it clear that just because the shoulder is paved does not mean it is a trail. Stutsman asked what projects on the list would not have paved shoulders. Neuzil said that there are quite a few that do not show paved shoulders. Miller said paved shoulders can be added at any time. The problem is to make sure the drainage is taken care of to make sure the shoulders do their job.

Harney asked if it is costly to put in a rumble strip so people know when they are going off the road. Parker said that the DOT is a big proponent of rumble strips. He said that he is back and forth on it. If there is a paved shoulder with lower speeds, he doesn’t think it is necessary. Parker added that these are all things that they think of when designing a road. Parker said that the rumble strips are costly because they can be cut in either after the pavement is there or a form can be stamped into the material.

Miller moved on to FY 07. He said that the first project, FY 07-A is grading and paving phase one of Newport Road. The construction will go from Sugar Bottom Road to Highway 1. Project FY 07-B is a pavement rehabilitation project with a paved shoulder on Highway 965 extending from the Iowa River Bridge to 120th Street. Parker said that this project is one of the transferred jurisdiction roads that the County received from the State 18 months ago. He explained that the road is not in great condition and needs the work.

The next project, FY 07-C is 120th Street reconstruction. Miller said that the pavement from Highway 965 to Interstate 380 is in such bad condition that it needs to be replaced. He added that they will also put paved shoulders on the area. Stutsman asked if the project should be moved up because of the severity of the condition of the pavement. Parker said that there are a couple of reasons that they have scheduled the repairs as they have. The first reason is that a recommendation study won’t be ready until the end of the summer and there needs to be time for right-of-way acquisition. He explained that Johnson County is maintaining roads in Shueyville because there was some legislation passed stating that Counties are responsible for the roads in all cities under 500 residents. Miller said that there are also funding issues to be discussed regarding the roads because the County only receives $18,000 a year for the area.

Miller said that the next project is a rehabilitation project on 500th Street, FY 07-B. The existing pavement needs to be replaced. Currently there are no plans to pave the shoulders, but they could easily be added. Neuzil supported paved shoulders on 500th Street because the area is heavily used by horse traffic.

Miller explained that project FY 08-A is Newport Road grading and paving phase two. He said that this draft is the recommendations from Howard R. Green. He added that he believes there are many people who want to talk about the Newport Prairie Du Chien Road projects, but that people should remember this is just a draft. FY 08-B is Prairie Du Chien Road grading and paving. Miller added that this project is the rest of the connection recommended by Howard R. Green. Miller moved on to FY 09-A, Sugar Bottom Road grading and paving. He said that this has been planned for several years and it seems that there is a consensus to remove the project. He added that FY 09-D is a bridge and culvert project that is linked to Sugar Bottom Road so if the FY 09-A is removed FY 09-D will be too.

Miller said that Oak Crest Hill Road is another road acquired from the State and in need of rehabilitation. Stutsman said that it seems to be quite costly. Miller explained that the project is going to cover a long stretch of the road so it is not surprising that it is a bit costly.

Miller said that 2010 will bring three new rehabilitation projects. Mehaffey Bridge Road with pavement rehabilitation from the North Liberty city limits to Sugar Bottom Road is one project. They will upgrade the entire stretch from North Liberty to Solon and put in paved shoulders. He added that the Mehaffey Bridge replacement project is scheduled for FY 10 and there is a study already completed. However, Miller said, there is a lot of design work to be done and they need the time to make the project right. Stutsman asked if the bridge would be built in 2010 or if they would start the design and permit process then. Miller said that the process needs to begin as soon as possible. He added that he expects the bridge to be a multi-year construction project. Parker said that traffic will be maintained on the structure as the new Mehaffey Bridge is built. He added that one of the recommendations from the study was that the bridge be replaced within eight years of the study and the study was done a year ago so that means that there is a lot of work to do in a short amount of time. Lehman asked if there is any Federal funding to assist in the construction. Parker said that it is his understanding that there are monies earmarked for the structure. Miller said that this plan gives time to look for other funding sources as well.

Miller said that 520th Street or project FY10-B is pavement rehabilitation from the Hills city limits to Wapsi Avenue. He added that then there could be a connection between Iowa City, Hills, and Wapsi Avenue down to Lone Tree all with paved shoulders. FY 10-C is the remainder of Oak Crest Hill Road rehabilitation. Miller explained that they would also have to add the cost of paved shoulders into this project, as they aren’t presently figured into it.

Harney said that Linn County has notified the County that they are going to be doing Ely Road from the Johnson County line to their community and that they have requested that Johnson County do its portion. He said that it does not appear that this project is included in the plans. Miller said that one of the sheets handed out are other recommendations the Board has made, and the Ely Road project is on there. He said that there are some issues with that, but that it does not appear that Johnson County can extend the project to Highway 382, but that they will work with Linn County to extend the road to a reasonable stopping place within Johnson County. He added that there are environmental issues regarding prairie grasses that are prohibitive to the construction. Harney asked when Linn County will be doing their part. Miller said it appears that they will be working on their section next year. Stutsman asked when the Ely Road project would be put on. Parker said that the Roadside Vegetation Management Committee is coming to the Board shortly to share their report. He said that there are ten top sites throughout the County that have been designated and this area is one of them so there are many more hoops to get through to do work in the area. Parker said that it is unfortunate that Linn County is pushing Ely Road. He said that it certainly is an area that needs work but it has to be done carefully. Neuzil said that he is aware of some talk about a separate trail system connecting Linn and Johnson Counties and this might be an ideal opportunity. Miller said that the Linn County Trails Committee has designated the portion north of the County line as a trail head location. He added that the trail committee through JCCOG will also be making recommendations and those could impact the 5 Year Plan.

Stutsman said that it seems that they should think about the plans that the Board and Planning and Zoning recommended. She said that she is looking at Osage, Dane, Naples and Maier Roads as well as Sandy Beach Road and the 540th grading and paving. Parker said that they certainly can rebuild roads that are close to the larger cities, but that in past experience once the road is completed the city annexes the road and the County loses a lot of money. Harney said that they should get together with the cities and talk about upgrading of roads and annexations. Dvorak said that they are currently thinking of reviewing or rewriting the Fringe Area Agreement with Iowa City to include annexation guidelines or cost sharing for annexations of newly rehabilitated roads. Lehman said that possibly the trade off would be that the roads will have to be built with city standards because that is what the cities will want. Parker said that is another point to think about. The cities are not looking for a rural road, but a city road with curb and gutter, water and sanitary sewer. Stutsman said that they are starting that issue with JCCOG and Countywide land use and this is a good thing to bring up. She added that she isn’t sure what Iowa City is thinking about for the area, but that there is a lot of land zoned residential. Stutsman said that she would like to add Dane, Naples, and possibly Osage Roads in at the end of the 5 years. Parker said that Planning and Zoning has recommended looking at that area and that perhaps it is up to them to figure out the priority of the roads. Stutsman said it would be good to start the discussion about the area with all of the players involved.

Harney said that he doesn’t mind going forward on those roads, but that there are other areas that need attention as well such as Sandy Beach Road and Amana Road. He said that some of the area by Dane Road can be development driven so the County doesn’t have to pay for all of the updates. Lehman said that the challenge will be money. He said that the only thing he sees as being able to drop off of the 5th year is Sugar Bottom. Lehman said that they could drop Sugar Bottom to a 5-10 year plan and then use the funds for a more pressing project. There is also a problem that may require a rise in the rural levy in order to fund all of the projects. Stutsman asked if there are there are three Supervisors who would like to take Sugar Bottom off of the program. Lehman said that he thinks it should be looked at in the 5-10 year range, but that it can be taken off for now. Harney agreed that taking Sugar Bottom off would be okay, but that he would like to see a corridor set aside for future development. He added that they also need to consider Ely Road. Parker said that there is a consensus to take Sugar Bottom off and put it in the 5-10 year plan. Neuzil asked if that would also take off the FY 09-D structure. Miller said that it would and that there is a 2003 study that did lay out some preliminary right-of-way lines that could be used for new development.

Parker said that there were also comments about putting Ely Road on the list and that he wanted to know if they wanted to replace Sugar Bottom Road with Ely Road. Harney said that would be fine. Stutsman asked when it would happen. Parker said that they are looking at FY09. There was consensus for the change.

Neuzil said that he wanted to bring up the idea of flexibility as there are demands for growth and development. He said that he would like there to be the ability for developers to buy into projects as needed. He said one possibility would be a small section of Rapid Creek Road that might have a developer buy-in and make an agreement. He suggested that they allow buy-ins to bump other projects because of the eventual cost saving benefits. Dvorak said that they could work with JCCOG on that intersection and if the Board puts the intersection on the plan they could get some cost sharing for the possible need of a controlled intersection. Harney said that they already had the conversation with the Department of Transportation and they said that there is not a need for traffic control. Dvorak said that traffic could be increased by upwards of 400 vehicles a day by approving one development.

Kurt Hamann asked what the annual anticipated budget for the County roads will be. He said that it appears to be $10 million a year. Parker said that there are rural tax funds and Federal funds available to the department. Hamann asked what the aggregate amount is in a year. Parker said that they plan more projects than what there is money for because there are things that take place on specific projects that will not allow them to progress so they have back up projects in place. He said that once the 5 Year Road Plan is set they cannot do a project that is not in the plan. Hamann said that from a planning perspective there might be $1 million in work and the next year there might be $20 million in work. Parker agreed. Hamann asked what the probability of that happening is. Parker said that he does not know what the probability of that happening is, but that it is a good point to bring up. He said that some years will be heavy construction years and others will be light construction years. Parker added that in light construction years staff is working on all of the paper work needed for projects. Hamann asked if the dollars are current or future dollars. Parker said that they are both, some are currently available. Hamann asked if the estimates are in today’s dollars or future dollars. Parker said that some of the money will come from current dollars and the rest will come from other areas in the future. Parker said that the interesting thing is that in 2007 the Legislature is proposing new legislation for Road Use Tax guidelines that each County will receive different funds. They base future projections on what they receive now. Stutsman said that right now projects are programmed for this year and they have been budgeted. In future years the planning will be part of the regular budget planning and the plans could be cut at any time.

Paul Osterholt said that he works in Cedar Rapids and travels 965 everyday. He said that the worst section of the Highway is from 120th to the Linn County Line and that section does not appear on the plans. Parker said that section is not on there because that section of road has transferred jurisdiction to Cedar Rapids. He said that they will be talking with the City of Cedar Rapids on the rehabilitation of that particular section of road.

Clarence Leichty expressed concern over the safety of Sharon Center Road from Highway 1 to Sharon Center. He said that two members of one family had accidents on Sharon Center Road during the past year. Leichty thanked the Planning and Zoning Department for recommending consideration of improvements to Sharon Center Road. He asked that improvements to the road be given consideration. He said that the road was on the 5 Year Road Plan but was taken off the plan. Georgia Rohret agreed with Clarence Leichty’s comments.

Mark Wyatt thanked the Board for the considering other forms of transportation other than vehicle traffic. He said that a multi-modal focus to roads is a good recipe for road planning. He said that if the proper facilities were built, people would start using bicycling and pedestrian transportation for recreation and transportation. Wyatt said that paved shoulders aren’t always the best thing for bicyclists and pedestrians because speed of vehicles increases and debris accumulates.

Tom Carsner said that looking at the second part of Newport and Prairie du Chien Roads, it appears that the Board is adopting the Howard R. Green Roads Study, which includes taking private land and building a road over it. He asked if it is the Boards intention to adopt the Howard R. Green plan. Stutsman said that at this point, yes, because she hasn’t heard any Board members saying that they don’t want the items on the 5 Year Road Plan. Lehman said that he is in favor of the recommendation but is still interested in seeing the final designs because hopefully some exceptions will be made in certain areas. Neuzil said that if the presented 5 Year Road Plan is the final plan, he will be voting against it. He said that he has made it clear that he doesn’t like the conclusions of the Howard R. Green plan and hopes that the Board will reconsider. R. Sullivan agreed with Neuzil. Harney said that there are a lot of good arguments on both sides but that he has to make decisions based on the best interests of the residents of the entire County. He said that at this point he will be supporting the 5 Year Road Plan but there will be a lot of time put in working with the residents along the road to create a design that will work with everyone to the best of the County’s abilities.

Stutsman said that she has been on the Board for 10 years. When she first became a Board member the County had a Land Use Plan that the County did not pay any attention to. She said that the Board has evolved in the last 10 years. What people are seeing at this meeting is exactly what Stutsman wanted to happen as far as what the County is doing with the Land Use Plan and the Roads. She said that since 1960 the North Corridor has been designated as the growth area for the County. She said that the Board has worked hard to preserve the ag area, and the land is already zoned in the North Corridor, so that is where the growth area is going to be. Stutsman said that they are trying to have the infrastructure go along with what the Board has designated as growth. Stutsman said that she knows that it is not what a lot of people want to hear because they moved to the area and then didn’t want anybody else to move there. She said that it is an area that is designated for growth and when there will be a lot of homes and traffic, the responsible thing for the elected officials to do is to have the infrastructure to handle it. Stutsman explained that she is willing to have the political will to see that what she has worked hard for the last 10 years to put into place for planning in the County is what they want. She said that the majority of the Board has approved the growth and development in the area, although she wasn’t always in that majority. She said that in the past year the Board also put in a phased in segment, which she did not support, that lays out immediate and long-term growth. Stutsman said that when the Board makes these decisions they make the commitment to provide the infrastructure for the growth and development. Harney said that a majority of the Board did vote for Phase I. He said that growth should occur in Phase I and they should put the infrastructure in to allow that growth to happen.

Neuzil said that he has the political will to say no to the plan. Neuzil said that he hasn’t said that they shouldn’t be doing these roads, but the proper question is how do they do these roads. He said that he would like the Board to think of the North Corridor as something different. He said that it doesn’t have to be a rural style road in the North Corridor and doesn’t have to look like the first section of Prairie du Chien. He said that they are going to upgrade the road, but the question is how. Neuzil suggested that it might be a potential maintenance project rather than a major reconstruction project. He said that those are things that the community is looking for leadership from the Board of Supervisors. He said that there is still an informal meeting, a formal meeting, and an opportunity next year to convince the Board to think differently.

Harney said that they had the engineers do a study and this was their recommendation. He said that the Board went out of their way in hiring someone for $70,000 to do a study, and they’ve come back with nearly the same thing as the engineers except they did come up with some ideas for design of the road that may help particular residents in the area.

Terry Dahms said that he was pleased to see and hear the inclusion of paved shoulders in a lot of the projects. Dahms continued that he was pleased to hear that they are starting to reach an understanding that a paved shoulder is not a bike trail, but an accommodation that accommodates combines and tractors too. Dahms said that he would like to address what has been laid out to be developed and the zone around Iowa City. Dahms said that he would like to make clear the distinction of what standard to build the roads to. He said that there is a probability that at some point that whatever is in the area could be annexed into the City and the City has different standards for roads than the County does. The City’s standard is an arterial street, which has 31 feet of useable space, that could include a curb and an eight foot sidewalk on one side and a four foot sidewalk on the other. He said that the other distinction the Board needs to make is that the area is not rural, but suburban, and slated for development. He said that accommodations need to be made for the residents in the area and the best accommodation is an eight foot sidewalk on one side of the road. Harney said that he will not support any road design over 45 miles per hour in the area. Dahms said that if they put in a street with a six foot paved shoulder, that is 36 feet, and an arterial street is 31 feet, which is quite a bit of difference. He said that a road that is 36 feet wide encourages higher speeds. He said that by making the road narrow and adding a few curves it will help control the speeds.

Jonathan Jordahl said that he appreciates the attitude of Planning, that the County is speaking in the context of plans and talking about meeting the needs of the plans. He said that it is important that they have a plan for development and the road planning process is seen in the context of the land use planning process. He applauded the County for talking in those terms. Jordahl said that one issue of concern is the issue of seal coating the Quarry. He said that the County has talked about seal coat as something that they want to get rid of and stop doing, not adding more miles of seal coat. He said that this is a policy that the County established. Jordahl said that he is not sure that this is consistent with adopted County policy and it should be investigated. He said that with regard to planning for roads in the North Corridor they need to ask if they are planning for water consumption. He said that the Silurian Aquifer Study will be out in the summer. Jordahl said that with regard to the Cheese Factory, planning for economic development is a priority of the County. He asked if they are allowed in their road construction policy to be driven by the choices of individual developers or is the road construction policy being driven by the Board of Supervisors and an overall view of what is good for the County. He asked if a smaller contribution from a developer would still drive a decision to construct a section of road. Jordahl said that the hopes that developers with a little bit of money aren’t able to change the minds of the Board.

Jordahl said that he loves the idea of the Scenic Roads Ordinance and asked what the status of it is. Stutsman said that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is still at the County Attorney’s Office. She said that the Board has not done anything more with the Scenic Roads Ordinance. She said that the recommendation from H.R. Green is that the Scenic Roads Ordinance is a designation for tourism. She said that she hasn’t heard any support from the Board that they are interested in pursuing it at this time. Jordahl said that the County could consider it as a way to lower speed limits and as alternative way to construct roads in the North Corridor that address the concerns of Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road and allow the engineering to be to a lower speed limit and lower standards. He said that it would be a way of doing a design exception that the State would accept. Stutsman said that the County hasn’t designed any of the roads. She said that there is interest from the majority of the Board to think creatively about what they are going to do when building and designing the roads. Harney said that the State will not take any particular area unless they have received a proposal of what the exception is. Jordahl said that this would be the purpose of the ordinance.

Greg Pickett recommended that the paving of Newport Road, Phase I, or FY 07-A, be moved to FY 08 because everybody is discussing design standards which haven’t been settled yet. He said that typically there are only so many miles of road that can be done and the first year is heavily loaded with projects. Dvorak said that there are developers that look at the land, the planning process, and the 5 Year Road Plan, and are making investments in property that the County has designated to be within the first two years of the 5 Year Road Plan with the intent of developing. As the Road Performance Standards indicate if a road is within the first two years they have a right to develop the land. He said that when the Board makes the decision to move projects around on the 5 Year Road Program there is concern that people are buying land with the intent of developing that cannot develop when projects are moved. Pickett said that if Newport Road stays in FY 07 the County will have to purchase right-of-way in FY 06. He asked how they can purchase right-of-way when they don’t know how they’re going to build the road.

Lehman said that they all agree that it is an ambitious schedule. He said that is one of the reasons that they took Sugar Bottom Road off of the program. He said that if they don’t feel that the design standards aren’t a majority of what the Board wants they won’t fund the road. Pickett said that is why it should be moved to FY 08 until things are decided and asked if there are any Board members who are willing to do that. Harney reiterated that he won’t support any road above 45 miles per hour. Neuzil said that he would be willing to move the project to FY 08 and it is his opinion that Prairie du Chien should be completed before Newport Road is. He said that he is confused why the Secondary Roads department would want to do one section of road in 2007 and then not do anything until sometime later. He said that when they start a project they should finish a project, and Prairie du Chien would be one of those projects. Neuzil said that to do a section of Newport Road and then not do another section until a year or two later seems strange. Parker said that it would be the following fiscal year.

Parker said it is his understanding that a preliminary design has been done for phase one of Newport Road. He said that it is a road that would be easily constructed based on the design that they’ve brought forward to the Board for approval. He said that they have tried to organize the three phases as best they can to minimize the impact to the traveling public. He said that they can do whatever the Board wishes as far as programming the projects for the specific year. FY 07-A is a project that they feel could be completed in FY 07 and they are looking at the following year for the two projects based on Board recommendations. He said that it will take them that much time to look at working with the property owners to make sure that they minimize impacts but yet still maintain design requirements as professional engineers are required to sign the plans. He said that it takes extra effort to work with the property, which is why they were pushed out to that specific year. Neuzil said that the first segment of Newport Road is pretty much a straight road. He asked how they will design that for 45 miles per hour. Parker said that a straight road can be designed for whatever speed they want unless there are vertical issues. He said that typically the signage of the speed limit is what determines what would be put on a straight road that is not horizontally or vertically curved. He said the speed limit sign determines what the speed limit is on that because they can’t do anything about the design. He said that section of road would be an enforcement issue. Miller said that on a straight section of road it is not typical to grade and buy extra right-of-way to fit the curves and create hills and valleys so that they could get to a design standard that would accommodate traffic speeds of 40 miles per hour.

Larry Meyers said that Prairie du Chien Road has been finished for five years and there is nothing going on other than Westcott Heights which was already started. He said that Newport Road East has been near the top of the list for a year and a half. He said that Prairie du Chien has been on the list for six months. Meyers said that in a discussion he had with Dvorak and Moore, they’re not getting any applications for permits in the area. He said that there is no land for sale, nobody wants to sell, and nothing can be built if no one wants to sell their property. Meyers said that the idea that roads have to be constructed immediately because of development that is coming is a false argument. Dvorak said that it doesn’t matter which road it is in the County. He said that a developer can ask for rezoning for any road that is within a growth area of Johnson County and is in the 2 Year Road Program. Meyers said that there doesn’t appear to be any activity on these two particular roads. Dvorak said that since he last talked to Meyers a developer bought 40 acres of land on Newport Road with the intent of developing because it is in the two year road plan. Dvorak said that it doesn’t mean that he will do it or that it will happen, but the land has been purchased.

R. Sullivan presented copies of written comments to staff and the public.

Stutsman said that preliminary design has already been done on Sharon Center Road. She asked if the design work is still OK. Miller said that what has been done can be reutilized.

Linda Lee said that an 80 acre piece of land sold in the Sugar Bottom area for $9,000 per acre. She said that another piece that is 60 acres is currently being negotiated for sale at $9,000 per acre. She said due to the prices the land is selling for, people who prior to this weren’t thinking of selling their 40 or 50 acre pieces will now think of it. She said that the lots on Dick Schwab’s property sold for $100,000 each. She said that she is happy that Sugar Bottom Road is being pulled off the plan but there needs to be an overlying plan of where the houses are going to be put on the properties.

Mike Dooley said that his farm is at ground zero of the grade and pave projects. He said that the project is going to happen no matter what they say. He asked that the Board keep in mind the heritage and the fragility of the area when doing the road projects. He asked that the Board make their choices wisely.

Stutsman said that the Board needs to make a decision on the 5 Year Road Plan by the end of March. Stutsman said that she would like to take the Howard R. Green recommendation off of the plan and move it to the Future Projects List. Stutsman clarified that she would like to construct Newport Road from Highway 1 and Prairie du Chien. She said that she doesn’t see an immediate need to build the new road at this time. Lehman said that he sees a need for the new road. He said that it will be a connector route and will be needed if they’re going to improve the other two areas. Harney said that if they take the road off they should scrap the whole road plan. He said that there is no sense in upgrading Newport Road without the new road because they won’t be solving traffic problems and congestion. Harney said that if they don’t do the new road they are setting themselves up for the same problems encountered when Coralville was trying to construct 12th Avenue and Forevergreen Road. Neuzil said that he is comfortable with removing that section of road, or at least having the Board consider a maintenance project instead of a reconstruction project. He said that if the Board is not going to do all of Newport Road they should do it all at the same time rather than doing one section and waiting years to do another section. Neuzil said that he would like to remove Newport Road until there is an understanding of what kind of road they are talking about.

Harney said that when they developed Phase I they were trying in the Land Use Plan to protect ag land. He said that in this instance, there will be some ag land affected and they have to make the decision of whether they want to allow growth and development. Lehman said that if they don’t do the section that connects they aren’t making accommodations for the residents in the area. He said that a reconstruction overlay accomplishes nothing other than lifting an embargo. Harney said that he recently saw an accident on Newport Road, and it’s not the only one they’ve had out there. He said that they’ve got to do something. Neuzil pointed out that he didn’t support the phasing of the North Corridor. Stutsman said that she was against the phasing also, but voted for it when she saw that a majority of the Board was going to support it. Stutsman said that the Board could look at the phasing again and decide not to support any more development in the area. Neuzil said that the reason he was against the phasing was because Phase I is too big, and people in Phase II might not see any development for 20-25 years. He said that it would make more sense to him to identify where they want growth and development to grow in the North Corridor and if the Board then wants to do phasing, do it in a way that recognizes where the actual houses are right now. Stutsman agreed with Neuzil. R. Sullivan said that he wasn’t on the Board when the phasing was adopted, but if he was he would’ve taken the phasing off the map and encouraged growth in concentric circles out from the cities in the growth areas per the Fringe Area Agreements. Stutsman said that they need to keep the focus on the 5 Year Road Plan and have discussion on the phasing another day. She suggested they talk about the 5 Year Road Plan at the informal meeting of March 3, 2005. She asked that the Board be prepared to make final recommendations and have a final vote at the end of March.

Adjourned at 7:58 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary