MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 15, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Discussion: Secondary Roads Five-Year Construction Program................................................. 1
Discussion From The Public.................................................................................................. 14
Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 7:00 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak and Assistant Planner Dan Swartzendruber presented a presentation regarding the Five-Year Construction Program. Swartzendruber said he had invited East Central Iowa Council of Governments Executive Director Jeff Davidson to come to talk about the Road Performance Standards that Secondary Roads has adopted. He said that there has been some discussion in past years about where development can occur and cannot occur, and Davidson will help explain that. Swartzendruber said that Davidson will give an overview of Road Performance Standards themselves, recent revisions, and how future roads are preserved and designated throughout the county.
Davidson proceeded to give his presentation, and invited the Board to ask questions as they come up. He said that in the late 1990s, the Board asked JCCOG about the how to determine when a road needs to be upgraded. This is something that the Board was consistently faced with as development projects were being brought to them. The chair told Davidson that it was frustrating because there would be very heated public hearings where the developer would say that the road was perfectly adequate, whereas the people who lived in the area were indicating that the roads were definitely inadequate and in need of improvement. He said that these issues were coming up all the time, and the desire was to try and bring some structure to this evaluation of when a road is adequate or not. Davidson said that the roads are the one infrastructure component that the Board has to manage growth in the County. He said that in the municipalities there are the big three: roads, sewer, and water. In the County however, the developer takes care of the waste water system and the water system.
Davidson said that many of the roads in the County are agricultural roads, and were established for agricultural uses. He said that the notion has been that when there is a paved road, it is adequate. He explained that there are three other types of roads: dirt, gravel, and chip seal. Davidson said that the notion is also that when suburban people move into rural areas, they are not used to driving on these kinds of roads which are not intended for high speeds or for the mix of people using them, rather than just agricultural implements and motor vehicles, all of the sudden there are bicycles, baby strollers, pedestrians and dog walkers, and all of these people need to be accommodated. He said that the goal was to develop a road management system with two principle components. They wanted it to be easily understandable, and they wanted it to be legally defensible. The County Attorney thought that this was an excellent idea. As they were developing the standards they tried to find as much information as they could. They called around and saw what other jurisdictions were doing. There were some publications out there, such as the state of Vermont, which had nice publications on when to upgrade a rural road. He said they called around to see what other counties were doing, and had a meeting with the Assistant County Engineer. They spent at least 18 months collecting information, and took some case study roads. He said that there are a lot of issues with chip seal roads. They then took the proposed standards, looked at the case study roads, and finally landed on some standards that the Board has adopted. He said that there are thresholds tied to those, specifically that dirt roads should have no additional development added, gravel roads up to 300, and chip seal roads up to 1,000. One thing that became very important in the County’s decision to adopt these standards was that they were never going to find something that was absolutely precise and that everybody agreed on. He said that they had to accept that when they did this.
Davidson explained that in 2003, they decided to consider some amendments to the Road Performance Standards. They considered raising the chip seal traffic threshold above 1,000. He said that the County had some specific development projects that were on roads that were pushing that threshold. He said that some specific things were exempting dead end roads of a mile or less in length, and a chip seal road that was within a quarter mile of a paved road. He said that they also looked at the possibility of reconstructing roads. He said that these standards do not address how to reconstruct a road, only when it is necessary to do so. He said that they still have to work out the specific design standards. The existing standards only indicate when it is agreed that the road needs to be upgraded. They also considered going to a system where they would improve the geometry of a road but then put a chip seal surface back on it temporarily so that they could reconstruct more roads. He said that the County felt that there was an issue with how many roads would be able to be upgraded if it was necessary to go to a paved standard every single time. Davidson said that they considered both of those options, and ultimately decided that going to a reconstructed road with a chip seal surface was not something that the County wanted to do. He said that the expectation was that if you were going to all the trouble to reconstruct a road, they wanted a higher design standard than putting a chip seal down. He said that it is difficult to put pavement markings on chip seal roads, and is hard to add sidewalks. Furthermore he said that there is the spring embargo every spring which is an issue for heavy vehicles. He said that the maintenance that has to be done every summer is a disruption to people in the County and in many cases, those roads remain very fragile.
Davidson said that Forevergreen Road, south of North Liberty is a perfect example of what happens when you don’t put maintenance into a chip seal road and it has too high of a traffic volume. He said that the road has basically gone back to gravel by itself because of the high volume and the lack of maintenance. He said the County hasn’t been maintaining it because it is going to be reconstructed this upcoming year. It’s had extra traffic on it because of the detour as they have been extending 12th Avenue. He reiterated that if anybody doubts the fragility of a chip seal surface, they should go out and take a look at that road.
Davidson said that the amendments were rejected by the Board, which decided to keep the existing standards. He said that there was a desire not to increase the amount of chip seal road mileage, nor to increase the maintenance expense. He said that they could not agree on why they would want to raise the threshold, and it was felt that the 1,000 vehicles a day was effectively managing growth in the County. Swartzendruber, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore and Dvorak did some research which showed that there were plenty of platted lots in the county and that it was not restraining and restricting growth in the county to have the standards in place. In fact, it was allowing the Board to manage growth in the county, which was part of the main idea.
Davidson said that Dvorak had also asked him to review some of the corridor planning studies that JCCOG has conducted. He said that JCCOG has been the venue for these when it’s been multi-jurisdictional, such as Oakdale Boulevard and Highway 965. People in these areas wanted to begin development of their property and would come to JCCOG and ask about the location of the road. He said that JCCOG didn’t know the answer, so they sat down with a consultant and looked at the corridors, and the alternative places where the roads could go. They considered environmental, social, and financial factors. As a group they agreed on a preferred alignment and came to an agreement which was adopted by Coralville, Iowa City, and Johnson County. The agreement stated where the road would eventually be built, and gave the reasons why. He said that in both of these cases it involved property which people were anxious to begin development of and property that people said would never be redeveloped. What was necessary was to involve everybody in the process so that an entire corridor could be developed. He also discussed Scott Boulevard, which was constructed over about 30 years, in bits and pieces. Davidson said that this was the model for Oakdale and Highway 965. He said that this has been an effective strategy, and the developers that he has worked with love this type of planning.
R. Sullivan asked about the existing corridors which have been around for many years. He observed that surely some of the properties have changed hands during this time, and asked whether it has just been buyer beware, or whether there is any attachment to the property which lets people know that the property they are buying has been earmarked for future development. Davidson replied that he was not aware that there was anything in terms of the property record that would indicate this. Davidson said that the communication that this is out there is an important aspect of the plan. Stutsman asked whether they finally adopted 28E agreements between all the entities that were involved. Davidson said that they had. Stutsman said that meant that it was official. Davidson said that he has been contacted several times by appraisers, who want to know about a road. Davidson said that JCCOG has dealt with a lot of irritated people who don’t want the road, but he has still tried to sit down with them many times in their homes and go through the various alignments, asking for input. Lehman said that this won’t show up on a title search as a lien, so someone could buy a piece of property and if you were new to the area, you wouldn’t have anything on your abstract that would show this plan. Davidson added that typically an appraiser would check all the planning documents for the jurisdiction that has authority, and that is when it would be discovered. He asked if there were any questions. The Board did not have any.
Dvorak said that they would now discuss what Planning and Zoning recommends for the future. He indicated that they would discuss four roads this evening, all of which are in the future plan. He said that they would address the North Corridor Phasing and Zoning from 1960, and the fringe areas in the Zoning from 1960. Swartzendruber said that in the middle of 965 and Highway 1 it is residential zoned ground from 1960. Coralville is also AR zoning, which is residential zoning. He said the map also captures some of the fringe areas surrounding the city. In Iowa City to the south and east and west there is some existing 1960 residential zoning. Inside the outlying fringe area is the growth boundary where municipalities can service adequately with the sewer and water. He indicated Phase I and II of the North Corridor project on the map.
Dvorak said that their first recommendation, which was brought up last year as well, is Sandy Beach Road and Lake Manor Road. He said that there is a two mile fringe area around Shueyville which is defined as rural agricultural land. The areas below that are a combination of rural planning areas and the Corps of Engineers land. He said that this is one of the highest traffic counts on a seal coat in the County right now. He said that this is in the growth area, and is in the fringe area and is zoned residential. He said that those were some of the criteria that they looked at in creating the map and in determining that this would be their number one recommendation, to either retain it in the future plan or move it up forward to the Five Year Road Plan.
The next road they discussed was Scales Bend road. Dvorak said that this was very similar. The area around it is the fringe area of North Liberty, and much of it is zoned residential. The concern they have heard in the past is that the Board is always concerned about the fact that the County fixes the road and the City annexes the property. Dvorak said that this is an area where if the Board chose to incorporate it into the Fiver Year Road Plan, that the County would enter into an agreement with the City of North Liberty that if they were to annex in an agreed upon window of time, that they would have to reimburse the County for some of that property. He said that there has been no discussion with them that they would move beyond their growth boundary, although cities do have the tendency to move outward further when they need the land and they do find engineering ways to sewer areas that they didn’t anticipate on sewering.
Dvorak said that the other thing that has been brought up recently is the land where the MYCA camp will be located. He said that if they chose to move forward on this plan they will have to think about the road alignments. He said that this would be their number two recommendation. It is all zoned residential, and is running 1,510 vehicle trips per day, the camp is there, and it is a recreational area the same as the Sandy Beach area. There is a private marina up there that has camping facilities, boat ramps and a grocery store as well, so there is a lot of activity in that area.
Dvorak said that the next map would be Dane Road, which was in the program last year. He said that it would not only be Dane Road, but would extend all the way down to Oak Crest Hill Road, which would be Powashiek Road which is currently gravel. He said that this is another area that the County could work out a provision with the City of Iowa City to make some provision for if Johnson County builds it and Iowa City annexes, some reimbursement happens. Again he said that this is all in the two mile fringe area, beyond their growth area, and in the County it’s all zoned residential. He said that this would be one of the criteria that they would look at. He said that there has been a lot of discussion with the landowners, and the Board has even talked to some of them about possibly developing in the area. He said that the traffic counts aren’t terribly high at this time, so they have allowed for some development in that area, but they feel as though this is a case where maybe they should build the road before the development starts, and not wait until after the development gets there. He said that this would be a good planning process.
The last recommendation is Sharon Center Road. Dvorak said that this is a little bit different in that really they are trying to provide a road alignment to Sharon Center, which according to their Land Use Plan, the villages are areas that they would like to see developed. He said that there has been some inquiry and some commercial development in that area and some residential development. He said that when this was brought up a few years ago, there was concern from some of the neighbors out there that if the road was improved, that they would start seeing development demands in the area. He said that this is a rural agricultural area, so according to current policies they cannot support any type of residential or commercial development in the area except for in the unincorporated village of Sharon Center. He said that this is why they chose this area.
The next one is something that Planning and Zoning is not recommending the Board put directly into the Five Year Road Plan, but is more of an area that they would like the Board to consider giving to the planning committee when they start updating the Land Use Plan. He said they put this in the report because it is something to think about for the future. He said that the Board has defined the areas that the planning commission start looking at when they start reviewing and updating the Land Use Plan. One of the things they are charged with is to look at new corridors in the North Corridor and throughout the county. He indicated that this area is Sugar Bottom Road, which is the current alignment and goes up to Mehaffey Bridge Road. He said that this came out of a study that was done in 2003. This would be a proposed protected corridor, which would go into the new high school at the end of the road on 180th Street. He said that they are planning for future roads which would support development if it were to occur on a northerly route and an east/west route to paved surfaces.
Neuzil asked whether in regard to Sharon Center there are certain demands that can’t be met right now in that community because of road infrastructure. Dvorak said that they have had some requests for some commercial development in that area that they can’t approve because it’s on a seal coat road. As far as residential development, he said he has not had a lot of requests. Neuzil asked if they were looking primarily at the northern part of Highway 1 to Sharon Center, or whether they were looking more at 540th Street to Sharon Center. Dvorak said that at this time they are just recommending the use and looking into the Sharon Center Road, the one closest to Iowa City. Stutsman asked if it would be allowed if the road was upgraded and somebody came in and said they wanted to put a housing development in the area. Dvorak said that staff would encourage the Board not to support it because it would be in conflict with the Land Use Plan. Neuzil said that it would be like having a very nice road on the way to Lone Tree, where they don’t allow development. Stutsman said that the Land Use Plan is a guide, and if the Board chose to allow it, then the Road Performance Standards as an ordinance would not prevent the Board of Supervisors from rezoning in that area. Dvorak agreed. Lehman said that the commercial application of Sharon Center is the same as Twin County dairies, where they couldn’t zone or build commercial because of the chip seal road. Dvorak said that they did discuss 540th Street and the Cheese Factory road. He said that they had that in the program last year but chose not to put it in this year because they have set a precedent now that that road at least at this time is going to be developer paid for, or at least cost-shared. He said that there is some interest in doing some commercial development, but Dvorak said that they have been told that these are cost share or they will pay for the entire improvements to 540th Street. Harney asked if that was for larger commercial or just one individual. Dvorak said that it is one individual who would really like to expand some facilities in the area. Harney asked why they would do Sharon Center Road when they wouldn’t do it for the Cheese Factory. Dvorak said that in his opinion they have set a precedent that they have already made one commercial development pay a third of the cost of the improvements, and with Sharon Center Road they have never done anything like that. He said that it is in the village area, and the Land Use Plan said they would support development there. He said that in the Land Use Plan update they are going to try to create a better identified area. Stutsman said that they have had some inquiries in Sharon Center itself about people whose land is already zoned commercial and who would like to build on it, but can’t because of the Road Performance Standards. Lehman said that Frytown has a hard surface road running to it from Highway 1, and the major difference with Sharon Center is that is chip seal everywhere. He said that if you asked them to do a portion like the Cheese Factory did, it’s not a portion to another hard surface road so there is a long distance to do that. Dvorak said that it is in one of the economic development areas as well. Lehman asked if there was a caveat that said the size of a building can be expanded by 50%. Dvorak said there was, which meant that there is some room for expansion without the road being upgraded. Dvorak said that it is not the Road Performance Standards in this case, it’s the site plan along with the road performance, so there are two or three different ordinances that they conflict with.
County Engineer Greg Parker and Assistant County Engineer Al Miller presented information next. Parker handed out a list of the projects, and said that the goal was to have all of this information available on the website. He asked the audience to remember that these are draft documents which are subject to change. He said the first thing he would review is the Iowa Code requirements as part of the Five Year Road Construction Program, and would do a general overview of the list of projects. Miller will then review the selected projects. He said that they would then do questions and comments.
Parker said that every year the Secondary Roads department is required to submit the Five Year Road Construction Program, which needs to be approved by the Board and then submitted to the State by April 15, 2006 each year. He said that the Board of Supervisors is required to adopt a Secondary Road Construction Program, which includes an accomplishment list for the next fiscal year and a project priority list of the previous four fiscal years. He said that they plan the construction projects based on many different activities such as funds available, possibility for completion, design, planning and others. He said that there were a lot of activities that take place prior to the actual construction of any project that they have. He said that they also have a future projects list of things that can be moved up into the Five Year Road Program as well. The Program is subject to the approval of the Iowa Department of Transportation, which is done annually.
Parker directed the Board’s attention to the Draft Johnson County 5-Year Construction Program Handout. He explained that the projects were also indicated on the map. He explained that the project numbers indicate where the funds are coming from. STP stands for Service Transportation Program, FM stands for Farm to Market, and TSF stands for Traffic Safety Funds. Typically STP funds are Federal funds, which have to be matched with either Farm to Market or other local funds, and typically they are matched at 80%/20%. He said that this document gives the perception that 2007 is a fairly aggressive year for construction. He clarified that the first two projects (Sand Road Grading and Paving) would be completed by the end of the summer. He said that the construction year runs during the summer, but the fiscal year starts July 1. He said that some of these projects will be finished this year, in 2007, and some will start in 2007 but won’t be completed until 2008. He said that they are listing these projects in the construction summer that they anticipate the project will be completed or started. One of the other things is that the cost estimate is based on past bids that they have reviewed, past bids they have received, cost index numbers that they are receiving through construction industry publications, bids that the Department of Transportation has let, all pulled together. He said that this also includes inflation. The last line is the status of the project, whether it is previously programmed or new. He said that the Plan is a dynamic document.
Stutsman asked if the plan would have to be amended if changes were made. Parker replied that if a project is added which hadn’t been on the Program as it has been accepted and approved by the Department of Transportation, they would then have to proceed with an amendment, and would have to hold public hearings and meetings. He said that typically it is not recommended to do that. They can however, as long as they have it programmed, sometimes shift projects later or earlier, but then they would be looking at funding issues.
Miller then reviewed the highlighted projects. He first discussed projects FY07-A and FY07-AI. He said that the first project begins at 480th Street and extends up to Sycamore Street. The project is in next week’s Department of Transportation letting, and the northern part is Iowa City’s portion that has already been let. He said that the County’s portion of the funding as bid is $520,000. He showed a digital photo of the area. The next highlighted project is Prairie Du Chien Road Grading and Paving, which is FY07-B, and the estimate is $1.1 million. He showed a slide of theFY07-C, which is Newport Road Grading and Paving, Phase I. FY07-D is an intersection improvement project on Derby Avenue and 120th Street. He said that this is a project which he anticipates getting done this summer. The previous projects are going to be let later on. He said that the reason for this project is the difficult sight distance looking east, and some additional traffic they are expecting on Derby Avenue as it is upgraded.
Miller explained that FY07 G is 540th Street Grading and Paving, which is the project associated with the Twin County Dairy; it starts at Highway 1 and goes east approximately 650 feet. An estimate on that is $220,000. Stutsman clarified that in this case the business is paying for part of this construction. Miller said that they were, and the agreement called for $66,000. Neuzil asked whether if they negotiate up to Gable Avenue, whether this could be something that could be amended. Parker said that this is a part of the dynamic document issue, and if it is determined that they have something else coming in and it would make better sense to tie two projects together, they could then discuss holding off on FY07-G. Miller said that the next project, FY07-H is the 12th Avenue Grading and Paving, which is almost complete. He said that they have it programmed in 2007 because it might not get completed by June 30th.
Miller went on to discuss the rehabilitation projects. FY07-J is the 500th Street Pavement Rehabilitation from Iowa County Line to Orval Yoder Turnpike. He said the estimate was $1.1 million. Neuzil asked whether this project would have additional space for horses. Miller said that a portion of the shoulder would be paved for horses. Neuzil said that this is one of the issues with the Amish Community. R. Sullivan asked about the Twin County Dairy Area. Miller said that the shoulder is very tight, as is the parking. He said that they were looking at lowering the grade and having a curb and gutter to deal with the parking situation. He said that this would not be a typical design, since they had to make some adjustments.
Miller said that FY07-J is a 3R project, and they would try to do the rehab they need to do within the existing right-of-way, and try to stay on the road top to reduce the amount of impact on the road. By doing that they have to be careful with the grade, and can’t add a lot of pavement structure above where it’s at right now because they’ll lose the shoulder when that is done. He said that they were looking at some different options at recycling the pavement and adjusting the grade on it, and widening the pavement without getting on to the slopes. Harney asked whether on the width of the road it would be hard surface all the way out, since some of the Amish prefer non-hard surface for their horses. Miller said that they would have a one-foot gravel shoulder, but the rest of it would be paved. He said that the traffic count was at about 400 vehicles a day, but the pavement is in very poor shape.
Neuzil asked about the projects in FY07 that are not highlighted, and asked if they were projects that were on hold. Miller said that they were just projects that weren’t included in the slide show, but were still projected to be worked on. Parker said that they could have gone through all the projects, but their goal was just to highlight the ones that were of main interest. He said that they can discuss any of the projects; if anyone has a question. R. Sullivan asked what LFM stood for. Parker said it is local funds on a Farm to Market route. Parker said that each one of the projects are Farm to Markets, or local funds, but there is also BROS, BRS, BR, which are all bridge funds but they come from a different pot of money even though they are all Federal funds. He said that almost all these project numbers are set by the Department of Transportation. Secondary Roads submits a concept statement to them, and they provide the project number. He said that they don’t set the number, and on true local jobs that’s when they set the project numbers.
Miller said FY08-A is the second phase of Newport Road Grade and Pave, from 2,000 feet south of Kott’s Lane to Turkey Creek Road. He said that they are breaking up the construction in the North Corridor into three separate fiscal years. The estimate is $1.7 million. He said that FY08-B, FY08-C, FY08-D, and FY07-K are all grouped together. This is the Highway 965 Pavement Rehabilitation. They are looking at doing some of the base widening and putting the sub-drains in a year before the actual pavement is rehabilitated. The sub-drains help with the moisture underneath the pavement, and the way they are looking at rehabilitating it, it is preferable to get that done prior to the construction on the surfacing. The last project, FY08-C is 120th Street, is a little bit up in the air right now, but there is a study underway extending it into Shueyville.
R. Sullivan said that he was in Des Moines meeting with legislative people from Linn and Johnson County, and said that this is an important road project, but is also an opportunity, and there is probably some pretty good right-of-way there. He said that he thinks they should look at not only paved shoulders, but also a separate trail. He said that the right-of-way is there to do it, and the trail should be included as part of the project, since this has gotten a lot of encouragement from legislators in Linn County. He asked Miller and Parker to comment on the possibilities and obstacles. Miller said that there was a fair amount of right-of-way, though the railroad does butt up against it for a portion of this. He said that one obstacle is the Iowa River Bridge, and unless a separate structure is built people will have to be on the bridge. He said that there are certainly areas where some grading work could be done and have an area there for a separate trail. He said that this would be eligible for some enhancement funds, although ECICOG’s funding for this has been designated for the past two or three years. Harney said that the priority for this funding is connectivity. Neuzil asked whether the timing would still work out for this project. Miller said he didn’t think it would be that important to do both at the same time. He said that they were not planning on doing the grading at all. He said that it’s not really important, and he doesn’t know that there would be a huge savings. Lehman suggested that it could be added later. Miller said that it could. R. Sullivan added that in terms of connectivity, the discussion today, is that this is the best connectivity they have.
Stutsman said that she heard that Ely Road through Solon was a priority for Linn County. R. Sullivan said it was, but that they agreed that they wanted to connect population centers. Harney suggested they discuss this at the Trails meeting, and that Linn County has said that they want to use the Ely road, and are already finishing theirs. Johnson County gave them $50,000 to get it to Ely, and that taking it on to Solon is the next step. R. Sullivan said he just talked to them today, and that they are very interested in this, as are the legislators. He said that they need to know whether this is eligible. He asked if they could use local money to do this. Parker said that they are expecting to receive a report from JCCOG within the next month on 120th through Shueyville, and they are going to recommend a separated trail in that final document. As part of a planning tool, it’s good planning to then try to join a system. Swisher is looking at separated trails through there as well, and certainly to receive the enhancement dollars is that they want connectivity between something to somewhere. R. Sullivan said that North Liberty already comes out to 965 by Scales Bend Road. Parker said that these are things they can plan for in the future, but he didn’t know that it would make a difference as far as the 965 project, because they aren’t planning on doing any grading outside of it. He said that those are things that they can look at, and try to apply for funds and grants and try to proceed.
R. Sullivan asked what kind of shoulders they would be looking at for this road. Miller said that it has ten foot rock shoulders on it right now, and that they are going to pave out a portion. The minimum they would recommend is four foot additional, which is probably what they are looking at given the speed limit. He said that the Department of Transportation would like to see six, but the County does not have the funds for this. Lehman asked R. Sullivan if what he was saying was that they should not do any more than is needed for motorized transportation, and maybe save some money for a trail. R. Sullivan replied that what he didn’t want to do is say that just because they paved it six foot, why not do a trail. He said that the speed of the traffic requires quite a bit of shoulder, whether it is paved or not, but he wanted to see these as separate issues. Miller showed a slide of 120th Street which demonstrated that the pavement was in need of some rehab.
Miller said that the next project is FY08-D, which is Black Diamond Road Bridge Replacement. This is over Old Man’s Creek, near the County line. This stretch of roadway is the last section of seal coat road. Lehman clarified that the approach part would complete the surface of the road. Miller said that it would, and that Secondary Roads would work with Iowa County to finish the paving there. Parker added that they classify structures based on two criteria; one is structurally deficient and the other is functionally obsolete. The bridges are then classified based on needs, uses, and the type of traffic that drives on it.
Miller then discussed FY09 A, Newport Road Grading and Paving Phase III, the section from Turkey Creek Road out to Highway 1. The section is estimated at $1.2 million, and would be the last phase in FY 09. The following project is FY 09-B, Oak Crest Hill Road Pavement Rehabilitation. He said he would consider this very high priority as well because the pavement is in bad condition and there have been some drivability issues on some of the pavement. The estimate on this is $1.6 million, and is the first project on Oak Crest Hill Road from Iowa City down to the Hills city limits. He showed a photograph of the condition of the road. FY09-D is Sharon Center Road Bridge Replacement. This project was added last year, and is a similar project to the Black Diamond Road bridge. It is the same age and would require a fairly sizable structure over Old Man's Creek with approach grading on both sides. Stutsman asked whether this road would be done without upgrading the entire road. Miller said they would have to tie in at some time, and that he would imagine the approach grading and the tie-in would be fairly lengthy on this. He said that it is functionally obsolete.
Miller explained that FY10-A is a project that was added last year. It’s Ely Road pavement rehabilitation from Highway 382 North to the Linn County line, and is estimated at $1.2 million. They would be looking at paving a portion of the shoulder on this project as well. Parker said that this may be one of those projects that could be reviewed. He said that the overlay was done in 1994. They anticipate that an overlay will last anywhere from 15 to 20 years, and they will be monitoring this. In about the timeframe that they have set, it would be good timing to do it, but if it is not needed they may push it back a year and keep pushing it until they feel there is a need to expend the dollars to overlay it. Linn County is looking at coming down to the county line, and there is an alignment issue there. He said that if they don’t do the project in 2010, they would do a joint project with Linn County to straighten the alignment out, and would match it when the rest was finished.
Stutsman said that this is one where they need to work for trail funding because there is a lot of interest in finishing this project. Parker said that this is part of the trails system that has just been adopted. Stutsman said that it is far enough out that both Linn County and Johnson County can work and lobby to the corridor chamber legislators. Neuzil asked if she was taking about separated trails. Stutsman said that it was too early to make the decision. Neuzil asked if there was room for separated trails. Parker said that Ely Road runs along the abandoned river area, and that’s what they were hoping to get. When it was abandoned it was averted back to the property owners, and there were some individuals who didn’t want it to be a trail. R. Sullivan said that there were some environmental issues in the north part of the area. Parker agreed, and said that it was a wetlands area. It is one of the top ten sites that they will be presenting for their natural vegetation activities that are without and throughout Johnson County. Neuzil said that extra shoulders are not the same as separated trail and wondered if there was really enough right-of-way to fit an eight foot trail system through this area.
Miller went on to describe the rest of the projects. FY10-B is Oak Crest Hill Road Pavement Rehabilitation, from Hills city limits down to the Washington County line. He said that Washington County does anticipate working with Johnson County on this. There was some aerial photography done, and Washington County does want to participate and do this all at one time. He said that Johnson County’s piece is in bad shape, but theirs is in worse shape. Johnson County’s portion is estimated at $1.1 million. Lehman asked if Washington County was looking at doing it any sooner than FY 10. Miller said that they may. Parker said they haven’t had that conversation yet, but if Washington County wants to move it up in the Five Year Road Program, doing a joint project within that time frame would be desirable. Harney said that he wouldn’t look forward to doing that, and didn’t see a reason to pushing the date up since the road runs parallel to 218. Stutsman said it was surprising how many people live on that road.
Miller indicated that FY11-A and FY11-C are Mehaffey Bridge Road Pavement Rehabilitation and the Mehaffey Bridge replacement. The pavement is estimated at $950,000 and the bridge replacement is estimated at $2.5 million. He said that this is another project that could be adjusted. The bridges are looked at every two years, and the structural monitors indicate how well it’s carrying loads. He said they will be able to make a better recommendation when the next report comes in. The bridge is currently load rated, and once it starts affecting truck traffic it would be a good idea to look seriously at doing this project. Neuzil asked whether Miller’s vision is to have it look similar as the one leg that leads into Solon. Miller said that they were, and that this meant paving a portion of the shoulder and widening the bridge to accommodate a shoulder. Neuzil asked whether there would be any discussion with North Liberty to do this at the same time, and whether they have their section done. Miller said that Secondary Roads would have a conversation with North Liberty about doing a joint project, but it depends on whether they feel like programming it at that time. Stutsman asked whether this is in their growth area. Miller said that it was. R. Sullivan said that they may want to come up with an agreement like the one Dvorak mentioned earlier regarding annexation. Neuzil said that if this is the plan that is passed on April 15th, it would be good to let North Liberty know, five years out, that this is part of Johnson County’s plan. Miller said that they had planned on doing this.
Finally, FY11-B is 520th Street Pavement Rehabilitation, which goes out from Hills to Wapsi Avenue. Sand Road is complete going north and will be complete the rest of the way into Iowa City this summer. The shoulders were widened and the pavement was rehabilitated in section of Wapsi Avenue a few years ago; 520th Street would be the only section that doesn’t have shoulders on it and that is coming up for pavement rehabilitation. Neuzil asked if that would be a paved shoulder similar to what Sand Road looks like. He said that it is unfortunate that Wapsi has the gravel shoulder, because that would have been a nice rural trail link into Lone Tree. Miller said that this section of Wapsi Road was done seven years ago. Lehman asked if there would be bridge replacement here too. Miller said that this was a possibility.
Parker concluded by saying that this is what Secondary Roads recommends as the Five Year Road Construction Program for years 2007-2011. Lehman thanked Parker and said that the Board’s plan is to bring this back on informal discussion, and then have a formal meeting to decide on what to do, after they hear public input. He said there will be another chance for public input at the informal meeting.
Stutsman asked about the small bit of Oakdale Boulevard to Dubuque Street. She said that Oakdale Boulevard ends abruptly and that traffic is now being routed through a residential area, which was never the intention. She said that she feels that the Board of Supervisors created that situation, and needs to fix it. She went on to say that there has been talk about it being in Coralville, and that Coralville will just annex it, but that this is an opportunity for both entities to work together to try to get this taken care of. R. Sullivan said that he feels exactly the opposite. He said that Coralville has had a lot opportunities to work together with Johnson County with TIF, and it hasn’t happened. He said that they are going to build this road, it’s going to become Coralville’s road, and they will be out $2 million in construction costs, Coralville has the road and the TIF doesn’t change. He said that he just doesn’t see how the County can do this project without some kind of written agreement with Coralville. Stutsman said that these are all the details that need to be worked out, but thinks that they would be willing to do this, since Coralville understands that this needs to get done. Neuzil clarified that Stutsman was talking about the quarry. Stutsman said that she was. She said that she spoke with Coralville staff and they are interested in getting something worked out. They haven’t been able to come up with the funding for it, so if Johnson County can work on in jointly maybe they will be able to get it done. Harney said that he didn’t mind working with them on that, but it would have to be in the future. He said that this is the first time he’s heard that they want to extend that road. He said that Coralville is partly responsible for what is happening in the area, because it is their annexations and their growth that is fuelling this. Neuzil said that it was important not to forget that as Davidson pointed out, Oakdale Boulevard is supposed to be developer driven, meaning that developers pay for it. He said that as R. Sullivan pointed out, government can pay for it, Coralville would certainly appreciate that, but in the end it really needs to be developer driven. He said that unless the quarry is interested in selling that, he couldn’t see the quarry pitching in money for this project.
Stutsman said that the original plan was great, which was to finish Oakdale out to Dubuque Street. She said that now a residential area has become an arterial. She said that this wasn’t developer driven. Neuzil said that they were. Lehman said that the ideal situation was that it would be developer driven, but even when the Board talked about preserving Oakdale Boulevard, there might be areas which a property owner says they are not interested in developing. He said that even when this was proposed, the Board knew that the quarry had no designs on developing their property. He said that they did know that it was going to go up to the residential area, and that when there are enough people who complain about through traffic coming through a residential area, that’s when this is going to become an issue, and now it is an issue. Stutsman said that this wouldn’t have to be done next year, but she did want the Board to start investigating it, see what the cost and obstacles are, and to work with Coralville to come up with a solution.
R. Sullivan said that he thought this presentation was great, and appreciated that it was so easy to follow. Parker thanked his staff for this. He said that they will still produce a document that will go in the Department of Transportation format. Stutsman said she had emailed about a couple of lights, and asked for Parker’s thoughts on those. Parker replied that those requests would not typically be part of the Five Year Road Plan, but would be considered a maintenance activity. He said that if the Board would like to put lights up, this would be covered out of the maintenance costs. Stutsman said she would like to talk about that at some time because she has been approached by a number of older people with concerns about destination lights in Sharon Center. Parker said that there are only two flashing lights in the county, and that there are no destination lights. Stutsman said that the Iowa Department of Transportation did the light at the cheese factory. Parker said that as everyone gets older, their sight tends to diminish and there have been a lot of reports done recently about those issues. He said that he thought that there may be some federal funding available to cover those types of activities. He said that they would certainly look into that and see if they can proceed. One of the things is that if a destination light is put up, this means that an electrical charge is incurred as well, which is something to consider. He said he would be happy to discuss this further.
Kathy Gable asked how they decided what phase was going to be first on Newport Road. She asked whether it would start in 2007. Miller said that they were looking at Prairie Du Chien and lower Newport Road beginning construction a year from April 2006. Gable said that the Board knew how unique that south part of Newport Road is, and for that to begin construction next April doesn’t give the Board much time between now and then to really look at that unique curve and see if there is any special type of design that would work. She said that Anderson-Bogert said that they were going to look at that closely to see how they could make it so that they don’t destroy so many of the trees in that corner. She said she is having a hard time understanding why they want to do that portion of the road first, and not maybe hold off a bit on that area so that the engineers can look at the design a little more closely. Gable said that the north part of Newport Road is a straight away, and the road probably won’t look that much different than it does now. She asked the Board to take this into consideration before the April 15th vote.
Stutsman asked why the south end was slated to be developed first. Parker said that there were a lot of changes since the original plan. He said that they had just had a meeting with Anderson-Bogert going over the staging of construction activities, and the recommendation was to proceed as they have outlined here, based on construction, funds and the fiscal soundness of when they do the construction activities. Lehman said that part of the timing was that Anderson-Bogert was hired to do the design on that, whereas Secondary Roads didn’t.
Tom Carsner said that he didn’t understand the answer to Gable’s question. He asked why it changed. Parker said that they are looking at a bunch of different things that took place as part of the projects. He said that by taking the crossover piece off, that reduced the amount of time and possible acquisition for right-of-way. It also reduced the timeliness and some archeological issues which were taking place out there which would have extended the project timeframe, and based on those things disappearing it would be the recommendation from Secondary Roads to proceed with Prairie Du Chien and lower Newport Road first, and phase this out over three years and continue out to Highway 1. Stutsman said that it is because they aren’t going to do the crossover which is why the north part of the road is not being done first. Lehman said that realistically they could all be done in one year. Parker agreed, but said that it would be expensive and very taxing for the staff. Carsner replied that there were four parts of the plan. There is Prairie Du Chien and three parts of Newport Road. He said it still seems awfully ambitious to try to do two of those in the first year. He said that it seems highly unrealistic to think that they can do both the Prairie Du Chien and the first phase of Newport in the same year. He said that what was interesting in looking at the pictures was the conditions of the roads in many of those pictures. Specifically looking at the conditions of the roads in Newport and Prairie Du Chien which looked pretty good compared to the other places. Yet, Newport and Prairie Du Chien are scheduled for grade and pave. He said that it surprised him because many of the other projects, even longer in length, were scheduled for rehabilitation. He said that out in Newport and Prairie Du Chien they are getting 15 inch core samples of road top. Those roads are in very good condition, especially compared to other roads. He asked why some roads get rehabilitation and others get grade and pave.
Stutsman said that all of those the roads that are getting rehabilitation are paved already, and the redesign has already taken place. Parker said that maybe one of the points he didn’t make clear was that in each fiscal year there are three parts of the program. One is grade and pave projects, which would be a complete reconstruction. Next, they have the rehab projects which are projects that Secondary Roads cannot go in and grade and pave. They can rehab these roads because they have a lot of previous design done on the road. That allows Secondary Roads and the Department of Transportation to save dollars and not expend the big dollars to completely regrade it and meet new design standards. He said that it is a tool that they use as part of the planning process. He said that the last portion of this for each fiscal year are the bridges and culverts that they have to either replace or repair. Carsner said that he would submit that there are other answers that the road has been established out there for a century or more, and it has it’s design that is present there. He said that his point is they could do a 3R if they wanted to.
Clarence Leichty said that Sharon Center Road has safety issues and thanked Stutsman for bringing up the issue of lights. He said that he didn’t hear a traffic count on the Sharon Center Road, and asked if there was one. Parker said that it was 690. Leichty thanked the Board for the bridge over Old Man’s Creek and for putting it on the Five Year Road Plan. He said that he has lived in this community and traveled this road for 35 years at least once a day, sometimes more. He said that it is not uncommon for him to see one to two vehicles in each mile traveled from Sharon Center to Highway 1. He said that more homes are being built on this road and in surrounding areas. He said that growth means more opportunities for accidents, especially on outdated roads. He informed the Board that W-62/Sharon Center Road is still experiencing many cars going into the ditch, which happens throughout the year. He said this is on the curves when rock is applied. He said that this road is dangerous because of sharp curves, no shoulders, and trees not letting the ice and snow melt on the road. He said that meeting a car or truck at night on the curve or hill can cause very tense moments, especially when it is raining or in the winter time. He said that the primary purpose that he is in attendance had to do with safety.
Leichty said that he certainly hopes the Board takes a hard look at this situation before someone is seriously injured or a fatality occurs. He asked that they please place the Sharon Center Road back on the Five Year Road Plan for grading and paving. He said that he was sure that the Board has seen articles about how dangerous rural roads are for teen drivers. He said there have been numerous accidents. He said that this is another reason for straightening curves and making this road more user-friendly and safer for today’s traffic. This Board felt it necessary to place this road on the Five Year Road Plan because of accident rate, traffic count, crash rate, geometry of the road. He said that this is one of the most dangerous roads in Johnson County, and asked if this road was not equally as dangerous today. He asked why the road was removed from the Five Year Road Plan in 2002. He asked the Board to place the road back on the draft program plan list today. He said that there may not be commercial building going on in this are to promote spending the money for this road, but it is curvy and dangerous.
Greg Pickett said that in the presentation tonight, there is a $1.5 million discrepancy between what is being presented to the Board and what is actually going to be signed off on for the Five Year Road Plan. He said that this information was presented in the same way last year, instead of the actual funding sheets that are turned into the state. He said that what was presented to the public last year was different from what was turned into the state. He said that the top item each year was right-of-way cost. Right-of-way cost for every year is not indicated on the handout, but it should be because it goes into this plan. Parker said that right-of-way cost is not a specific project, but it is listed as a line item as part of the Five Year Road Plan. He said they do allot monies for right-of-way acquisition every year in the budget he submits to the Board of Supervisors. Pickett said that what is being presented to the Board now, and what is going to be the final, and what is being presented to the public is about $1.5 million short. He said it is all local money. Pickett said that when Secondary Roads comes back the next time it would be good to list how much right-of-way for each year.
Pickett said if they are talking about trying to do the lower end of Newport and Prairie Du Chien, he would like to see the funding breakout as to where the money is going to be spent. Harney asked Parker how he would do this. Parker said that Anderson-Bogert did some estimates for right-of-way costs in their presentation, so they have those costs. He said they don’t know what those costs are going to be until it’s all over with. He said they are looked at it as a per parcel basis, and estimated cost per parcel. R. Sullivan said that some of the projects don’t have right-of-way costs, but the lower part of Newport is going to be a lot of money. Parker said that this was true, and that they would also have to acquire right-of-way for the bridge projects. He said that in his view it was not a large amount.
Terry Dahms said he appreciated the presentation, which helped to visualize exactly what is being talked about. Dahms said that what bothers him is that what is missing is the Land Use Plan. He said that the Land Use Plan is an important aspect for the type of road that is put in. He said that some of the pictures that were shown went past developments or the outskirts of North Liberty. He said that this is a fundamental difference between different areas that really needs to be recognized. He said that if they have the Land Use Plan on top of these new roads, they could see the differences between rural and suburban areas. Dahms said that suburban areas require different types of roads than rural areas. In suburban areas people tend to object to the big 36 foot wide roads. He said that what they need is not something quite as wide, but which also incorporates a wide side road. He said that what he continually sees missing when they talk about these roads, such as the roads in the North Corridor which are set aside for development, is that the area is of a suburban nature and the roads should therefore be designed differently.
Pat Sippy said that the Board didn’t discuss Old Upper Highway 6. She asked when the road is going to happen for a rehab and intersection alignment. Parker said that they haven't set a letting date on the project but it could happen sometime between now and the end of next year. Sippy confirmed that the project was moved to FY 07. Parker agreed. Sippy said that Upper Old Highway 6 is a paved road, a short road, and is an odd mix of ag and residential and the speed limit is 45. She said that the realignment turns half of the road into F-28, for which there is no plan for chip seal, no plan to upgrade, and which is not posted for speed. Furthermore, this will eliminate the stop sign, which she opposes. Sippy said that she wants that intersection fixed, because it is huge and a large triangle, but it is not unsafe. She said that Upper Old Highway 6 funnels people onto F-28 and cars come from both sides. She asked that it remain as a funnel to F-28, and it tells people that they are entering into a lower speed zone. She said that the road surfaces are two different issues. She said that at first it was all going to asphalt, then it was going to be chip seal. She said she doesn't understand the reason for this. She said that if this project was going to happen now, she wanted more discussion about the whole concept here which is based on a lack of a plan for F-28 which is the chip seal road with increasing traffic and no lines. Parker replied that the west end of the road needs some attention fairly soon. He said that there are a number of things that need to be tied up, such as taking care of the water main issue with Oxford and purchasing some right of way for the intersection. He said that this summer there may be some activities on the west portion, but not in front of Sippy's place.
Harvey Henry spoke for himself and Dick Gibson. He said one of the things that they wondered is now that there is a road across the Dooley and Ferentz property taken off the plan, why the Board is doing anything on Prairie du Chien Road at this point, and suggested that this just be set aside for ten years. He also mentioned the Gable corner, where the County is talking about taking out an acre and a half of 150 year old oak trees at a tremendous cost. He indicated that presently the corner can be driven at 25 mph, but Anderson-Bogert wants to come in and destroy all those trees so that the speed limit can be raised to 35 mph. He said that he thinks this is a misplaced expenditure of money and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about what it takes to save the beauty of an area.
Roseanne Sippy said that she is concerned about the stop sign on Highway 6. She said she backed up everything that her husband said earlier in the meeting. She asked the Board to think about what the goal is of changing that stop sign. She said that they are talking about going from Old Highway 6, which is a 20 foot road with shoulders, going on to F-28 with no markings and 18 foot shoulders. She asked whether F-28 was to be a main thoroughfare to the growing North Liberty. She said that if the County wants to make F-28 a semi road, maybe they should ask themselves whether this is really the appropriate road for this. She said she would like to see some long term planning before $500,000 of taxpayer money is spent on this project, and land is taken away from the Grady family.
Pat Cancilla said that about five years ago, Dean Oaks was going to do a development at the end of 245th Street. At that time it was argued that the intersection of 245th and Sugar Bottom Road was unsafe. An agreement was reached between the County and Dean Oaks, that he would pay 50% of the cost of fixing that intersection. The estimate by Secondary Roads was that it was going to cost approximately $30,000. Dean Oaks wrote out a check that evening and handed it to the Board of Supervisors and it was put into escrow, sealing the agreement that it was going to be fixed. At a subsequent date it was discovered that the $30,000 estimate was way to low, and a study was done out of Muscatine which figured the cost at closer to $130,000. There was only a miniscule portion contributed by Dean Oaks to do that development, and subsequently it has been estimated that it will cost $130,000. In the meantime, the Board has taken Sugar Bottom Road off the 5 Year Road Plan, but are still going to do this intersection because they had an agreement with Dean Oaks, and don't want to lose his $15,000. However the County is going to redo this at a cost of $130,000 now. At the same time, the Board is looking at a change in the development that Dean Oaks was going to do. He was going to put in 30 houses there. The current plan is to put in ten houses. Cancilla clarified that the load on that intersection is not the same. He said that five years ago when Doug Frederickson was the head of the Secondary Roads department, he talked to Gates, changing that intersection. He said that if they change that intersection, they are going to widen it at that point, put on shoulders, do a number of things and people are going to be coming down Sugar Bottom Road, suddenly they are going to see this little segment, they are going to speed up and are going to have to slow down again because there is a curve coming. As an engineer he said that it is not a good idea to only do one segment of the road.
Cancilla asked the Board why they are doing this intersection at this time when they have taken Sugar Bottom off the 5 Year Road Plan. He said that the only reason that he could see why they would want to do that is so they don't have to give Dean Oaks his $15,000 back, but in the meanwhile they are going to spend $130,000 for $15,000. He urged the Board to think about this and to provide him with an explanation as to why they are doing this. Stutsman replied that the Board said publicly over and over again that it was an unsafe intersection. She said that the Board felt that they needed to go ahead with improving the intersection because of liability reasons. Cancilla said that that was because there was going to be 30 houses in that development, and if there are only going to be ten it is a different situation. Stutsman said she would like to talk to the County Attorney and see if it is not an issue anymore, and if it isn't they can take off the plan.
Fred Malley said that all they have been talking about is hard surface roads. He asked how you get a gravel road with a lot of houses on it to be hard surface. He said they had talked about this before. Malley lives on 170th Street where there are about 20 houses. Oak runs into 170th Street and has a lot of pot holes in it. He said that after the last snowstorm, there was a lot of gravel in the ditch. He asked how to get this piece of road into the Five Year Road Plan. He said he was sick of hearing about Newport Road, and expressed anger at the amount of money the Board has spent on consulting fees for that project. He added that one of the roads that should be in the plan is the extension of 140th Street. He said that at there are several housing developments at Twin Valley Lakes, and many school buses which travel this route. He said that this would justify an extension of the road.
Neuzil said that he does want more discussion about Planning and Zoning and their recommendations. He added that he would like to see the section in question of Old Highway 6 upgraded all the way to North Liberty. He mentioned that he is still against Sugar Bottom and 245th Street, just as he was last year. He said he hasn't changed his mind on Newport Road, and is happy that they took off the particular section that cut through people's farms, but still doesn't see justification of doing the road. He said that since the construction won't be complete until FY09, perhaps they could hold off on construction until that point, which would give everyone enough time to review the Land Use Plan. Lehman said that at some point in time they would put this on the informal agenda, although they didn't set a date. Parker said the plan needs to be submitted to the Department of Transportation by the end of March.
Adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary