MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 15, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SEATS Director Tom Brase: Progress Report to the Board of Supervisors; Approval of an Addendum to 28E Agreement Between Iowa City and Johnson County; and Approval of Revised Substance Abuse Policy. 1
Farmers National Company Farm Management and Sales Representative John Yeomans: Firewood Cutting and Sale Contract........................................................................................................................... 4
County Attorney Janet Lyness: Resolution Urging Repeal of the Residency Requirement in Iowa Code Section 692A.2A....................................................................................................................................... 5
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak and Planning and Zoning Intern Hilary Copeland: Presentation of the Planning and Zonings 2006 Annual Report.......................................................................... 9
Discussion: Loss of Federal Entitlement Benefits Draft Resolution........................................... 13
Discussion: Proposed Resolution Regarding the Recent Annexations by the Cities of Coralville and North Liberty 14
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors............................................................... 17
Inquiries and Reports from the Public..................................................................................... 17
Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:07 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Harney noted that the first item of business is a progress report to the Board of Supervisors from SEATS Director Tom Brase. Brase explained that Johnson County SEATS works to provide service throughout all of Johnson County by providing the general population in the rural areas rides and by providing the ADA paratransit service for fixed route services provided by Coralville, Iowa City, and North Liberty. The SEATS mission statement is to provide independent living by providing transportation service for people throughout Johnson County. This promotes and enhances the quality of life for those in Johnson County and helps the elderly live in their homes for long lengths of time. SEATS has a confidential secretary, a billing supervisor, an operations supervisor, two dispatch schedulers, 30 drivers, 13 of which are full-time, and a maintenance tech coordinator.
Brase explained that SEATS provided 95,451 trips in Fiscal Year 2006. This is 4,261 more than in FY 05, and about 18,000 more trips than FY 01. The demand for the service continues to grow, especially in Coralville, Iowa City, and now North Liberty. SEATS provided 3.61 trips per hour in Fiscal Year 06, which for a paratransit service is very good. Brase continues to monitor measurable goals monthly. Stutsman asked what the national average is. Brase replied that it varies. Rural services provide fewer trips per hour than metropolitan services.
Brase noted that SEATS revenues continue to increase by about 5%. Expenditures increased the last three years, but for the last five years they were down to about 3%. The County subsidy is staying constant and they are trying to keep it level. Cost per hour continues to grow as the cost per mile continues to grow. Maintenance costs this year increased a little bit, but they should drop next year with the new vehicles that were purchased. Revenue miles continue to usually grow, but this year they are staying pretty constant which is good and says a lot about SEATS efficiency. Brase said that the total number of trips continues to grow. Percentage of cancellations decreased, but the percentage of no shows increased. SEATS is working on getting letters out, working with the new software program, and individual circumstances.
Brase noted that JCCOG did a study to show how SEATS efficiency is comparable to other paratransit services in the state. Brase said that for the performance review for FY 06 there were 116,524 trips requested and 95,451 were performed. A lot of requests that were not taken were because it wasn't exactly the window they wanted or it could have been a rural ride. SEATS has zero denials in the ADA area, therefore, they do not deny any rides in the Iowa City and Coralville areas. Missed rides increased and cancellations dropped. In 2005 SEATS contracted with MH/DD. In 2006 that number is not there because SEATS did not have a contract with them. They have a contract with Pathways for rural rides and the University Heights rides. The largest percentage of rides is in Iowa City, which was 67% and went to 72% in FY 06. Coralville stayed pretty constant at 11%. Rural rides stayed pretty constant at 9% to 11%. R. Sullivan asked if Brase has a sense of what the North Liberty ride percentage will be next year. Brase responded that North Liberty will be counted as Coralville.
Brase explained that SEATS has new vehicles, which have been dependable. They have better suspension, less maintenance costs, a positive image, are safer, the wheel chair accesses are easier and quicker for the drivers, and the air conditioners are better which makes the vehicle more comfortable for the riders. Just like with the $250,000 that was earmarked for the facility, the same sort of funding happened with the buses. Cambus had about 11 buses that they were going to have replaced last fiscal year and money was allocated for those due this session at the Federal level, so they don’t know if they are going to get those buses or not. Even though SEATS moved ahead with a large group it was a good thing because they could have been stuck for another year without buses.
Brase said that SEATS maintains a positive work environment. They have quarterly Labor Management Committee meetings along with customer service and other quarterly training sessions with the staff on things like HazMat, CPR training, and a stress management course provided by Synchrony. SEATS promotes and encourages intergovernmental collaboration and cooperation. Brase said that SEATS contracts provide services for Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, University Heights, Solon, Lone Tree, ECICOG, and various agencies throughout the county. Brase stated that he is very pleased with the people he works with in how they get along and get the work done.
Brase went on to explain that SEATS borrows and lends out short vehicles. Brase presented a break down of the subsidies the County has been paying. The FY 01 subsidy was over $400,000. In FY 02 it was $355,000, in FY 03 it was $358,000, in FY 04 the subsidy was $314,000, in FY 05 it was $315,000, and last year it was $334,000.
Next, Brase explained the accomplishments of SEATS. They have been working on continuing public meetings and providing presentations. Brase will be doing presentations in April for the ARP and the Senior Center. They also had coverage on Channel 2 News a few weeks back regarding how SEATS handles cold weather and how they help serve the elderly people.
Brase explained that SEATS continues to look for ways to find funding for a facility by exploring the different grants that are possible from Homeland Security to the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) infrastructure grants. There is $100,000 that was set aside that they need to move ahead on from Representative Leach's Office back in 2005. SEATS has seen an 8% revenue increase in the last three years overall. In the office they are currently changing their software. The IDOT strongly recommended this and gave an 80% to 20% to match to help the development. The software will be used throughout the state, so if there is ever a desire to link up and do scheduling all together it will be possible at some point. It is a software system that is user friendly; however, it is different from the other system therefore the employees are still adjusting to the changes. Stutsman asked if they have gone live with the new system. Brase responded that they plan to go live during the last week of March.
Brase noted that they continue to look for space. County Engineer Greg Parker has been very helpful. There are many plusses to collocating with Secondary Roads such as sharing fuel, maintenance, and the radio tower.
Brase explained that SEATS has training programs in place and they continue to set high goals and try to meet service efficiencies. For customer service, they have enhanced the telephone service. Outreach and increased communication are a future goal. SEATS would like to maximize current urban service and enhance rural service by providing more for those out in the rural area by allowing more time and availability. Brase went on to explain the 28E agreement between Iowa City and he imagines that it would have to be done with Coralville also. Johnson County currently contracts with Iowa City, Coralville, and University Heights to provide the federally mandated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service. This service requires transit agencies that operate a fixed route service to their residents to provide comparable paratransit service to those whose disabilities prevent them from using the fixed route. The addendum that he is working on would help them get funding. They sent out an addendum that was looked at by the IDOT and he passed along to County Attorney Janet Lyness to look through. This is part of their contract to receive the funding which is why the addendum is being added. They meet all of the things that they already require but they just want to have it in writing. R. Sullivan asked if Lyness is comfortable with the contract. Lyness responded that there are a lot of things that are in the contract that aren't applicable to the Johnson County SEATS service but if the County tries to change the addendum the Federal government will throw a fit. Stutsman asked if the contract commits the County to things that it is not already doing. Brase said no. Harney thanked Brase for his great services. Harney noted that he just returned from Washington D.C. and the Chamber of Commerce was trying to get funding for Brase’s facility. They are positive, but there are no promises. The Board thanked Brase for the report.
Brase said that his next item on the agenda is revision of the SEATS Substance Abuse Policy. There are two items changing in the policy. On page 28 it states that all covered employees with a negative reasonable suspicion drug test result will be required to be retested. Brase said that since drug tests are monitored they would like to remove this line. On page 32 it states that the Federal minimum of 50% is required for testing. In the last two years due to the fact that there were so few positive drug and alcohol tests the number has dropped to 25% according to the Federal guidelines. The Board agreed to put the revised substance abuse policy on a future formal agenda for approval.
Harney stated that the next item on the agenda is business from Farmers National Company Farm Management and Sales Representative John Yeomans regarding a firewood cutting and sale contract. Yeomans explained that they have the opportunity to clean up the County Farm and also make a little more income off the farm by cleaning up some of the scrub trees. Clint Rohret is still excited about farming the ground and putting the additional acres into production. This is the old CRP ground and it has not been maintained for a number of years and as a result the trees are starting to grow up through it. Based on the County's long term plan for this field, which is to keep it in native vegetation such as prairies, it requires the trees be removed and control measures be taken to the woody vegetation by either mowing or burning. The farm is currently within the city limits therefore burning is not an option any more. The County has a good opportunity now due to the strong grain prices and the new willingness to clean up the field. Yeomans explained that they can grow crops in the field for a number of years and then when the farm goes out of production, native vegetation can be planted fairly easily.
Yeomans stated that he has found a firewood timber harvester that is willing to cut some of the bigger trees for firewood and he will compensate the County $100 per semi load. The County would receive income and save Rohret time in clearing the field for crop production. R. Sullivan asked what they do about stump removal. Yeomans said that Rohret has bulldozers to push the stumps out so that he will be fully able to till both fields next year. The Johnson County Soil and Water Conservationist looked at the farm and sent a letter to the County stating that it does meet their guidelines. R. Sullivan asked if Rohret has received a copy of that letter. Yeomans stated that Rohret and the Soil Conservationist were on the property together and reviewed the conservation plan for the farm.
Stutsman asked if Yeomans has dealt with this tree cutting company before. Yeomans responded that they operate near one of his farms in Washington County and he has been aware of them for a while. Stutsman said that in her experience she has seen timber companies go in and leave the land in worse shape than when they started, so she would like to make sure that they do a good job and that they don’t make more work for Rohret. Yeomans responded that they are currently working for Rohret on one of his farms and he is comfortable with them. Stutsman asked about the $100 per semi load because it seems pretty inexpensive to her. Yeomans said that a lot of the cost is due to the labor because the trees are anywhere from four to five inches in diameter. Last summer Yeomans had talked with former County Supervisor Mike Lehman, Secondary Roads, and some other departments within the County, about these trees and no one was interested in clearing the land. Harney asked Lyness if anyone in her office has reviewed the contract. Yeomans stated that he sent a copy of the contract to Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell who was going to take a look at it. The Board agreed to place the contract on the formal agenda after the County Attorney's Office has a chance to review it.
Harney said the next item of business is from the County Attorney regarding a proposed resolution to urge the repeal of the residence requirement of Iowa’s code section 69.2A, the Sex Offender Registry. Lyness stated that the Board of Supervisors has received a request from ISAC as well as the Iowa County Attorneys Association and the Iowa Sheriff and Deputies Association. The Iowa Legislature several years ago put into affect a provision for the Sex Offenders' Registry that prohibits certain people who are sex offenders who have had an offense dealing with a minor prohibiting them from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a licensed daycare center. The intent was that this would somehow protect children; the reality is that where someone lives often has very little to do with where they are offending. Having a residency requirement prohibiting them from being 2,000 feet from a school or a daycare center really didn’t have any impact on trying to protect children. What this residency requirement did create was a lot of people who didn't want to register anymore on the sex offender registry because they were going to have to move from where they lived. There are a lot fewer people registering locally as well as statewide. Lyness added that she feels it gives people a false sense of security to think that somehow because a sex offender lives within 2,000 feet of a school or a daycare center that somehow their children are safer than children who live more than 2,000 feet away.
Lyness reported it has been found that there are very few places and options where people who would be covered by this residency provision on the Sex Offender Registry Law could live. As a result there has been a lot of colonizing of sex offenders in an area that meets the requirements or a lot of difficulty finding somewhere to live, so they are lying about where they live, therefore making it hard to keep track of them. It has created a lot of problems as well as it being something that is very time consuming for law enforcement to try to find out where people are really living. Lyness explained that it is one of those laws that had good intentions however the research now shows it is not effective, not protecting children, wasting resources, and giving a false sense of security.
Lyness noted that the Iowa County Attorney Association, the Iowa Sheriffs and Deputies Association, along with many other organizations have asked the Iowa Legislature to repeal this law. ISAC made the request that local governments including Boards of Supervisors pass a resolution urging the repeal of the law. Because it deals with sex offenders a lot of legislators don’t want to look like they are being easy or soft on sex offenders so they are hesitant to change anything that makes it appear they are not being tough on sex offenders. These organizations want to say that one can certainly be tough on sex offenders, and be effective, but don’t pass something that is going to be counter productive such as this residency requirement. The request to the Board of Supervisors is to pass a resolution urging the repeal of the residency requirement part in the Sex Offender Registry Law; section 692A.2A, of the Iowa Code. County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek added that essentially the bottom line is that in a political sense they are elected and they want all the other elected officials to stand as one so that it is not a political issue and say that this was well intentioned but ineffective. The elected officials want to get rid of something that is ineffective and adopt something that is more effective.
Pulkrabek explained that the bottom line is that they have forced a lot of sex offenders underground and as a result law enforcement can’t find them, which is more dangerous than at least having an idea where they are regardless of where they are living. Registering is the important thing. Four counties already have passed the resolution and more are coming; these organizations are hopeful that the Johnson County Board of Supervisors will also support the repeal of the residency requirement in passing the resolution. RAGBRAI came through Coralville last year and this year it is going through Dyersville. Dyersville has the most restrictive sex offender law; no sex offender on the Registry can be in town. There will probably be at least one or two on the Sex Offender Registry ride into town. How could that law be enforced, there is no way to do it, this illustrates how this law is ineffective.
R. Sullivan asked Pulkrabek to elaborate on the time and effort that has been put into trying to figure out how to enforce this. R. Sullivan said that it’s not just that it isn’t working but it is also costing time and money. Pulkrabek explained that Sheriff Clerk Margie Stanton spends approximately 20 to 30% of her time working on sex offenders and registrations, but also the Sheriff’s Office has added Sergeant Rochelle Ray into the records area and that is another one of the areas she has to concentrate on. Ray does the majority of enforcement issues, filling the charges that they have to file. If one sex offender needs brought back from out of state because there was a registry violation it will cost the county money to bring him back. Pulkrabek reiterated that the sex offender residency requirement is an ineffective law. Harney added that he wanted to clarify that the resolution does not do away with the registry law it is simply doing away with the 2000-foot rule in tracking those individuals in those particular residencies. Pulkrabek went on to add that they are not being soft on sex offenders, but the 2000-foot law is ineffective and has caused the State of Iowa alone to lose track of 100s of sex offenders and law enforcement needs to know where they are.
Stutsman asked if this meant the registration of sex offenders would stay in place. Pulkrabek clarified that absolutely the registration law will stay in place, this just deals with repealing the 2000-foot law. Neuzil asked if there was any expectation that the sex offenders are going to start registering. Pulkrabek stated that he believed that they would start registering because they won’t have to be fearful of where they are living. There are many people that their families have been here for many years and they call and want to know where they can live and how do they take care of their families. These offenders are lost. The law also doesn’t say that sex offenders can’t go to houses within 2,000 feet of a school or a daycare; it merely states that they can’t sleep or live there. Harney added that another part of this is that some of these offenders aren’t necessarily violators of youth but they still fit the criteria for registering, living within those distances. Stutsman added that this covers the whole gamut of anyone that is charged whether they are bona fide pedophiles or a lesser offense, for example public exposure. Pulkrabek said that the main concern is where they are.
Lyness added they have found that there aren’t a lot of places in Johnson County, within Iowa City, Coralville, or North Liberty where people on the registry can live legitimately. The farther that people get away from work or transportation often becomes an issue. People who work with the treatment of sex offenders will say that a person who is most likely to re-offend is someone who doesn’t have a stable environment and a person who is less likely to re-offend is a person who has a stable home life, work environment, and they need other things going right so they can control urges, etc. so they won’t be offending. If they lose their job because they can’t get to work, they have to worry about where their housing is, they live separate from their family because of where the family house is, the risk of re-offending has increased. R. Sullivan added that it also really makes it a county issue because the cities are where the schools and the daycares are located, pushing them out into the rural areas and making it the Sheriff’s Department’s job to do a lot of this work rather than the town police. Pulkrabek added that when it came to enforcing this, the Department was lucky at least in this area, the local law enforcement agencies work together with us.
Pulkrabek said that the problem is that it makes all departments in law enforcement get into the real-estate business. Everyone affected by this law was calling, so staff had to get out County maps to inform them of where they could and couldn’t be which really isn’t the Sheriff’s Department’s forte. Stutsman added that the bottom line is that the law is just not effective. If it could be said that it was effective at stopping abuse then the resources could be justified but putting in all of these resources and not getting any return from it. Neuzil added that he didn’t have a problem doing this, but he still would like to know what it is that the associations want if they don’t want this law. Neuzil asked if the plan was to go with safe zones or some other suggestion. He said that legislators are not going to drop this nor should they unless they have something in their hands ready to roll. He asked what some of the associations are proposing. Lyness added the County Attorneys Association is proposing safe zones, so sex offenders can’t go to a school without being given permission to be there and looking at where people are going to congregate not just where they are sleeping at night. The idea is that if there are safe zones access can be restricted monitored better and be much more effective.
Lyness said that the Registry is continuing, so the County Attorneys Association is not saying get rid of the Registry. The fact that the Registry is going to continue is important for people to keep in mind. Pulkrabek added that the Registry is continuing to evolve. There use to be a type of rating system. The Department of Criminal Investigation is looking at bringing something like that back because they would like to be able to classify a person, for example a person who made an indiscretion at the age of 18 with someone that they were in school with and were found guilty of a crime and maybe at the age of 25 they married that person. They want to be able to classify by creating three different classifications, so that they can differentiate between some of those offenders. Pulkrabek added that the Iowa Sheriffs and Deputies Association is in line with the County Attorneys Association on the safe zone issue. Lyness added that the reality is that sexual offenses occur by someone known to that child, either a family member, friend, or generally someone who that child feels safe with. When they talk about the 2000-foot requirement that is really dealing with the stranger coming up and finding the children, which in reality is a very small percentage of child sex abuse. Getting rid of this requirement still only deals with a very small percentage of the child sex abuse.
Neuzil asked if anything has been heard from the Iowa League of Municipalities. Cities have taken this law and shoved these people into the county, the small communities have shoved their problems into the county, so are the cities on board. Lyness responded positively, that in addition to the Iowa League of Cities, the Iowa County Attorneys Association, and the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association, Prevent Child Abuse Iowa; Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Iowa Association of School Boards, Iowa State Association of Counties, Iowa Supervisors Association, the Teamster’s Law Enforcement League, members of the Joint Public Safety Board (including the Iowa State Police Association), Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers, Iowa State Troopers Association, Iowa State Patrol Supervisors Association, Iowa Professional Firefighters, and the State Police Officers Council. This is just a partial listing of the organizations supporting the repeal of the residency requirements. Neuzil added that it would be an absolute travesty if the Iowa Legislature didn’t act on this. He asked how much more expertise is needed.
Pulkrabek stated that if all elected officials stand together and say that they are all supporting this, it would alleviate one other fear. Lyness added that the victims advisee groups, the law enforcement, and the counties all standing together is what it is going to take to get the legislature to change it. Harney added that there’s an issue that has come along with the residency requirement and that’s communities opening child care centers within their neighborhoods to make sure they can push these individuals away. Stutsman added that the Board of Supervisors are also constituents and a lot of people in the State don’t agree with this and that it just gives a false sense of security. Pulkrabek recommended that when someone in the public would like to talk about it they should explain it to them, and it will make sense to them. Pulkrabek added that he personally believes that it would be a positive thing for the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to pass the resolution. R. Sullivan asked Lyness if the language that the Board of Supervisors had in front of them is the language from the Iowa County Attorneys Association. Lyness stated that actually ISAC sent out a proposed one that she revised and is in line with the other counties. Harney indicated the resolution would be put on the agenda for a future formal meeting.
Recessed at 10:22 a.m.; reconvened at 10:27 a.m.
Harney introduced the next item of business from Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak and Planning Intern Hilary Copland regarding the presentation of Planning and Zoning’s 2006 Annual Report. Dvorak began by stating that he would like to formally present Planning and Zoning’s Annual Report for 2006. In accordance with office policies and practices the intern presents this to Board, so that they can put this in their portfolio. Dvorak explained that Copland is a first year intern in the Planning and Zoning Office.
Copland began with the building permits and the housing starts. This year the Planning and Zoning Department issued 223 building permits and 35 electrical permits, representing a total estimated construction value of 20.6 million dollars throughout unincorporated Johnson County. This is 69 fewer building permits in 2006 then in 2005, which is continuing a four-year general decline. The total number of building permits decreased by 18% and the total estimated value of these projects decreased by 37%. Now Johnson County is also issuing building permits for Swisher, Shueyville, and Hills. In 2006 one permit was issued for Swisher, nine permits where issued for Shueyville, and zero building permits where issued in Hills. As the tables indicate, the values for building permits have generally declined since about 2000.
Copland moved on to the type of building permits that were issued. Residential alterations and new single family homes made up 75% of building permits issued in 2006. Single family detached houses accounted for 68% of the valuation and the table illustrates the total break down between the type of building permits issued, their valuation, and where they were issued. In 2006 Johnson County began to issue manufactured-home permits, and eight manufactured-home permits were issued. These were not included in the table because they do not have a value associated with them. Figure two also gives another break down of the permit valuation by building type. In housing starts, 48 single-family residences were began in 2006. Forty-five of these were issued for building projects in unincorporated areas and three where issued in Shueyville. This is a decrease of about 55% from the prior year, which had 88 new single family residences. The total value of new single family housing units was 14.9 million dollars. The table shows the cost increasing from 1997 through 2000. One can see that the average cost of a house now is about $310,000 and in 2005 the average cost was $281,000. This was a 21.2% increase in the average building cost over the past year. Stutsman asked if the 21.2% increase reflected an increase in the cost of building materials or size of the house. Dvorak replied that in the past the value that was associated with cost pretty much was accepted from the contractor and now the department does more of an in-depth study in a planning and review process. It does not include land acquisition it is only the actual house structure itself. The Planning and Zoning Department’s new planning review process has come up with a better and more realistic value of the structure. R. Sullivan asked if the structure is $310,000 and someone brand new is moving in they are in for more than $310,000. Dvorak replied yes, with the land values in the County the whole value is much higher.
Copland continued on to rezoning and plattings. The Planning and Zoning Department evaluated 20 rezoning applications in 2006, which represented a total of 282.9 acres, 13 applications totaling 198.51 acres of farmland were rezoned, and two applications for 49.87 acres were denied. In 2006 there were seven applications to rezone 34.52 acres of previously zoned land, which included four down zones. This zoning activity is detailed in the table showing agricultural land rezoned to other uses. Figure three has increased slightly from 2005, but it is still lower then it was in 1997.
Copland reported on platting. The Board of Supervisors approved the platting of 30 subdivisions, totaling 372.85 acres in 2006. A total of 108 lots, which is 94 build-able lots and 14 out-lots, were contained in these approved subdivisions. Included in the approved subdivisions were 13 farmstead splits, which is a decline since 2005 which had 19 applications. The total acres also decreased from 94.72 acres in 2005 to 60.41 acres in 2006. The average lot size was 4.65 acres, which is a little smaller than the average 4.99 acres the previous year. The next table is a list comparing acres and lots from 1997 to 2006. Below that is the number of farmstead splits and acres contained in those farmstead splits. The vacancy rate for Johnson County at the end of 2006 was 26.2%, which is similar to the 2005 vacancy rate of 26.1%.. The vacancy rate is the number of platted and build-able lots that are vacant within the county, then taken out of the total number of build-able lots within the county. This is a fair estimation of the number of lots currently platted and ready for development within the county, but may be skewed slightly as a result of cases where there are houses built on multiple lots or unbuild-able lots due to Health Department minimum lot size.
Copeland stated that for annexations, according to the Assessor’s Office, no acres of land were annexed from the county into incorporated cities. Overall 2006 was a very low year for annexations with only one completed annexation of 64.18 acres from North Liberty to Coralville, additional annexations were proposed in 2006, but were not completed by the year’s end.
Copland continued onto variances, conditional use permits, and other permits. In 2006 the Board of Adjustment received five applications for variances; three were approved and two were denied. The Board of Adjustment received no applications for special exceptions. The Board of Adjustment reviewed 14 conditional use permits; 13 applications were approved and one application to operate a photography studio is pending to allow Iowa City to review the application. There were six applications for boundary line adjustments in 2006 and all six applications were approved. Two site plans were reviewed and recommendations were made to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors by the Planning and Zoning staff. Both site plans were approved in 2006 and both were for light industrial developments. There were 134 new E-911 addresses assigned and 47 signs were replaced. Planning and Zoning approved 73 oversized moving permits for vehicles that exceed standard height and width limits. The County has worked closely with the National Resource Conservation Service in order to preserve environmentally sensitive areas. To this end a total of seven land development permits were granted, two for wetlands, two for new construction, two for minor improvements, and one for excavation.
Copeland reported on the 2006 planning activities. The County continued the review process for the Land Use Plan adopted on December 31, 1998. Meetings and sessions were held in April and May, 2006, which generated a list of topics for the new planning committee to address during the monthly work sessions which are set to continue through mid 2007. The State Committee has discussed policies for transit, villages, the environment, wastewater management and a cultural overlay zone. The Building Code Board of Appeals in conjunction with the Building Division adopted amendments to the 2005 National Electric Code, including Annex G. The new Building Codes were adopted by the Board of Supervisors June 1, 2006. The Building Division staffed by Senior Building Inspector Ruben Arsate, Building Inspector III Neil Bombei, and Building Inspector III Lucas Maloney performed inspections under 2003 Building Codes, 2003 Residential Codes including Appendix F, radon control methods, including swimming pools, and hot tubes. Arsate was accepted into the instructor pool for the ICC. Bombei became certified in commercial, mechanical, residential, and electrical inspections. Arsate received certifications as commercial building inspector and building examiner. Maloney gained certifications in propane gas associations, CTP, residential building, residential electric, commercial electric inspections, and became a level three Building Inspector. In 2006, for the first time the Building Division began issuing permits for new and replacement homes and manufactured home parks. Also in November 2006, the City of Hills adopted a 28E agreement, which allowed the County to administer building permits for the City of Hills.
Copeland reported on professional activities. Dvorak and Moore participated in the University of Iowa Urban and Regional Planning Department’s AICP accreditation process. Dvorak served on the Johnson County Housing Task Force on the AP Johnson County Livable Community Action Team. Moore attended four days of AICP continuing education classes in February. Dvorak and Moore attended the Upper Midwest APA Conference in October. Maloney and Bombei also attended training at the ICC Colorado Chapter in Denver.
Copeland moved on to Fringe Area Agreements. An amendment to the Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement was adopted in 2006. Agreements with Coralville and North Liberty are currently under review. Dvorak has contacted fringe area municipalities to insure satisfaction with their agreements with the County. GIS building permit data was added to the Department’s non-GIS data base completing the web-based interface, now known as JC Home. The goal of this project was to reduce paper usage and to make the process more efficient by making it easier for the public and the staff to determine the status of permits. Another priority for the year was the identification of rural residences where multiple homes exist on a single parcel. This eases the process of 911 addressing and assists emergency services providers in identifying house locations quickly and precisely. This was all contained in a GIS layer in 2006.
Copland went on to the Planning Projects for 2007. The 1998 Land Use Plan update will continue through 2007 and monthly work sessions with the Land Use Review Committee will continue through approximately mid-Spring to late Spring, at which time the Committee is expected to recommend a draft plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission plans to present the draft to the Board of Supervisors in the first half of 2007.
Copland gave an Ordinance update. The Planning and Zoning staff will continue to review and revise the Unified Development Ordinance, which was approved on December 23, 2004. The Sensitive Area Ordinance has been edited by the County Attorney; the Sensitive Area’s Version A, has been brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Economic Development Committee continues to meet with Iowa City Area Development Committee to increase communication and develop new links and relationships. Johnson County has been preparing fringe area agreements with municipalities in the County for 11 years. Three agreements with Oxford, Hills, and West Branch remain to be completed of the 12 possible municipalities. Coralville and North Liberty agreements will be reviewed to determine any necessary revisions. Staff is investigating the possibility of future fringe area agreements with Linn County and Ely. The Building and Inspection Division plans to investigate the possibility of issuing contractors licenses in the county. Planning and Zoning will continue to investigate the creation of a web-portal for the Planning and Zoning Department, which will serve as a one stop shop for all Planning and Zoning data and various permits and applications associated with a specific property. This will be an information clearing house that will allow ready access to Planning and Zoning public documents. This conversion to a web-based activity will take many months but should pay dividends in terms of saved time and ease in use for years to come.
R. Sullivan asked if this was going to be available on the website. Dvorak replied that Planning and Zoning keeps the past five Annual Reports available and then archives the remainder of them. After this meeting the information will be made available. The Board thanked Copland and Dvorak for the report.
Harney began by stating that the next business is from the Board of Supervisors on the loss of Federal Entitlement Benefits Draft Resolution. Neuzil added that this is a particular piece of legislation that is affecting county governments, which is one of the issues that Neuzil will be addressing when he goes to Washington D.C. in the month of March. Primarily what is happening is individuals who become inmates are not eligible for certain funding once they become inmates. Pulkrabek said that as he understands it, if someone is getting Medicaid or benefits such as that, for instance if someone is getting medication from the VA, if they are incarcerated once they have been incarcerated for a period of 30 days those services are suspended, so then the cost for those services or medication are passed down to the County. What has also happened is if the person is then incarcerated for a time period exceeding one year then they have to go through the whole reapplying process. If it is just suspended and they are only incarcerated for six months then they can simply have their benefits restarted without a formal reapplication process, but if they exceed those 12 months then they have to reapply to get those benefits.
Pulkrabek explained that this has been an enormous burden for the Johnson County tax payers by this being passed down to the Sheriff’s Department. Jail Alternatives Program Director Dr. Melinda Lamb explained that what this amounts to is that the Federal policy of dropping or suspending those individuals that get incarcerated is really difficult for the Sheriff’s Department to deal with. Stutsman stated at first blush this seems like an appropriate law, but then in reality it really is putting this burden on the County because the County is required to provide medication and physical health care when someone is incarcerated. Pulkrabek added that it is indisputable that these medications are needed, but it is just a way for the Federal government to pass the buck down to the counties through Federal mandates. Neuzil said that it was created because the Federal government said that they weren’t going to pay for criminals, which sounds good when a politician is running for office, but the ramifications are that someone is going to have to pay for them. Pulkrabek added that people who are incarcerated are still human, they still have needs, and the County still has to take care of them while they are in County care.
Pulkrabek said that the County has agreements with the UIHC and a physician assistant to come in but there is the cost of the medications. The cost of the medication in particular at the VA, someone who has done their service for this Country and then for the country to turn its back on them is not appropriate. R. Sullivan said this is obviously talking about the impacts that it has on the County, this is one of the biggest difficulties that they face out at the Hope House. Once someone comes out of Oakdale or some other institution, the Hope House spends a lot of time trying to get people eligible for the benefits that they need. It would be nice for people to come out of these institutions with these benefits already intact, allowing them the opportunity to get through a lot quicker and back out into the community and functioning. Stutsman added that it would be interesting to have that information from Lamb and the rest of the Board agreed.
Neuzil explained that this is also an issue that Linn County is dealing with and the Linn County Board of Supervisors will also be heading to Washington D.C. This is one of the major initiatives for the National Association of Counties legislative conference coming up next month. Stutsman asked if other counties in Iowa have already passed this resolution. Neuzil replied that this is just being passed around now. Pulkrabek suggested that maybe next week when the Board of Supervisors goes to Des Moines they should discuss this with ISAC.
Recessed at 10:22 a.m.; reconvened at 10:27 am.
Harney introduced the next items of business which was the proposed resolutions regarding the recent annexations by the cities of Coralville and North Liberty. The Planning and Zoning Department and Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan had drawn up a draft resolution for discussion by the Board. M. Sullivan began with the information from Planning and Zoning and some of the Board of Supervisors, so M. Sullivan put together several different versions of this and he was not quite sure which version the Board of Supervisors would like to go with. His recommendation would be to talk about them and then make a determination as to which one the Board of Supervisors would like to use as a final draft to use to vote on next week at the formal meeting. M. Sullivan added that he directly did not have anything to do with authoring it other then making changes in the formatting of the resolution itself.
Stutsman stated that she was working with the second version and that she had talked with Neuzil about what the differences were between the one that was sent out yesterday and the one that Neuzil had put together. It sounds like they basically say the same thing it is just that the wording is a little different and the recommendations are different. The one that M. Sullivan sent out has five recommendations; whereas, the one that Neuzil sent out has four recommendations. Stutsman went on to add that she agrees with omitting the fourth recommendation on the M. Sullivan version. Stutsman agrees with Neuzil that it is not the Board’s place to talk about assessments, rather it is for individual Councils to talk about.
Stutsman stated that she believed the fourth recommendation should be eliminated from M. Sullivan’s proposal. M. Sullivan removed the fourth recommendation. Stutsman restated by M. Sullivan proposal she doesn’t mean the he drafted it, but with recommendations from staff and Supervisors. R. Sullivan stated that he likes the fourth recommendation being included in there. He went on to explain that the Board of Supervisors already asked the cities to do some other things, which they may or may not do, which is the general idea behind the letter. They may not heed this letter and the City Development Board may not care about the letter. A lot of the residents in these neighborhoods think back to Altana and things of that nature and people getting socked with really large bills after the fact. Although the Board can’t control it, the resolution should include that the Board would like to try to see this not happen. Neuzil added that he didn’t mind the idea that it is a nice goal; however, he doesn’t see that as what the City Development Board is trying to do here.
Neuzil said that the City Development Board is looking at where they think these communities should grow. The City Development Board is going to look at the needs of those two communities, they are also going to heavily look the goals of what the residents want and that is how they are going to solve this decision. Neuzil stated as far as specifically, if annexations do occur every step to prevent large and costly assessments he doesn’t think the City Development Board will look at that point. Neuzil stated that this is why he had omitted the fourth recommendation. Harney added that he thinks it should be addressed at the community level, whether North Liberty, Coralville, or another community. This problem has been run into before with 12th Avenue and Altana, where it does have a huge impact on the property owners, and some had to actually sell their property because they could not afford to pay for those upgrades. Harney stated that he understands what Planning and Zoning is saying; however, he is not sure that this is the place for it to be addressed even though he is supportive of something like that. Meyers added that he agreed that these are legitimate concerns but he is just not so sure that the resolution needs to be as wordy and complicated as it is now. Meyers said weighing in on a lot of this stuff the City Development Board needs to be a part of the process. He would tend toward a resolution that is simpler than one with all of these different steps.
One of the steps that Meyers had a few questions about was step number two; neither city should annex unless there is an immediate need for the land and development is planned at urban densities. Meyers added that one of the problems that he had with that is that urban densities could be seen as a code speak that the Board of Supervisors is leaning toward favoring Coralville’s annexation and his personal opinion is that the Board of Supervisors should not favor either one of them. Once it is inside someone’s city limits it is going to be entirely up to them what they are doing with it. R. Sullivan stated that urban densities is somewhat vague in that there is a pretty wide range as to what can be considered urban. Neuzil agreed and stated that he had written that future development “should be planned” at urban densities instead of writing “is planned” at urban densities. Obviously there are certain areas within the annexation that are already built out, these areas are at capacity.
Neuzil added it is up to the community to define urban density. The Board of Supervisors has their particular goals within the County and the Cities have their own particular goals as to how to define urban density. Coralville and North Liberty’s approach is different when it comes do dealing with urban density. Once again it is just a wording issue. One of the whereas statements was taken out of the M. Sullivan's document and added in as part of the recommendations in the Neuzil proposal, as follows “in addition both cities should complete the infrastructure for existing municipal subdivisions”. There are some particular areas of property or land that Coralville has not developed yet and it seems only appropriate that they would want to finish what they have already taken, rather than start another process of taking more land.
M. Sullivan asked what document is being worked off right now. Neuzil responded that it is the M. Sullivan document. Neuzil added that many of the Board of Supervisors members are looking at this document for the first time, so maybe the Board of Supervisors should take the next week to look at both of these recommendations and let this document out into the community so that individuals may react. R. Sullivan added that another important piece that is different between the two documents is the last whereas of the M. Sullivan draft states that the Board of Supervisors has heard from a lot of individuals other than the elected officials of either City or employees of either City. The public individuals have generally not been in favor of the Coralville annexation and have been in favor of the North Liberty annexation. This doesn’t have to change the Board of Supervisors recommendations, but it is something that should be noted for the individuals in Des Moines. Stutsman asked if it was not clearly stated where it says no residents have indicated a preference for Coralville. Neuzil added that it is in the M. Sullivan version and it is added back into the Neuzil document in the second to last whereas; where it says that the City of Coralville intends to provide services and infrastructure for the area to be annexed immediately and will start developing in urban density against many of the adjoining citizens wishes. Neuzil added that the reason for the language in his version is because he is not sure exactly how many citizens are actually for or against this annexation. The Board of Supervisors is assuming that many of the adjoining citizens are pretty upset about this, which Neuzil feels is a fair statement. As far as no residents indicated, Neuzil felt a little uncomfortable saying that because there are certain residents which the Board of Supervisors saw in the Newport Road case that are afraid to come to the Board of Supervisors because they don’t want their neighbors to know whether they are for or against an issue. To assume no resident, Neuzil felt a little uncomfortable with that which is why he took it out. But it does say against many of the adjoining citizens. Obviously the goal is basically the same thing; the Board of Supervisors needs to let the City Development Board know.
R. Sullivan added that the Board of Supervisors needs to let the City Development Board know what the Board of Supervisors has heard. Meyers is in agreement with number four that the City Development Board should come to Johnson County because that would tie in with what was just talked about. He has some concern that the City Development Board sitting two hours away may not get enough input on the issue. As far as annexations go this may be one of the more involved and contentious ones that the City Development Board may have faced and it would be good if they came to Johnson County and got a lot of input.
Stutsman added that the report should clarify that by “all to an annexation” the Board of Supervisors only means the annexation between Coralville and North Liberty in number five of the report. Neuzil emphasized once again that the Board of Supervisors should review these two documents and report any thoughts to M. Sullivan. Harney said the Board should work off of this draft and send any changes to M. Sullivan and the Board will discuss and approve next week. Stutsman asked if the Board of Supervisors can communicate about this document via e-mail. Lyness explained that the emails have to be sent to M. Sullivan and no one could communicate about this issue via e-mail to other members of the Board. Individual responses are what would be helpful and M. Sullivan will put everything together for the Board.
R. Sullivan thanked all the County crews and departments for their response to recent bad weather. R. Sullivan attended the Communications Committee meeting; visited the disputed annexation area between North Liberty and Coralville and talked with a number of residents; and attended the Buy-Here Chamber of Commerce Committee Meeting.
Stutsman reported that she, Harney, and M. Sullivan met with the Iowa City/Coralville Animal Shelter to review the contract and she attended a Decat meeting.
Neuzil attended the Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Board meeting, a Blues Night Out fundraiser and event for the Shelter House, Table to Table, and Gothic Cafe, and delivered valentines to veterans at the VA Hospital.
Meyers reported that he attended the Communications Committee meeting, the Decat Board meeting, the Juvenile Justice Youth Development Board meeting, and a liaison meeting with SEATS Director Tom Braise.
Harney reported on his trip out to Washington DC where he gave a presentation to the Transit Department for funding for the SEATS facility and for trails in Johnson County.
Douglas Paul addressed the two points on the annexation issue. One is the statement about citizen preference for Coralville and North Liberty. Paul stated that there is a big difference between the two versions. One version acknowledges that the people who live in the area prefer North Liberty. Paul asserted that the percentage of people Neuzil mentioned who would be in the category of someone who prefers Coralville but doesn’t want to say because they don’t want to upset their neighbors would need to be considered. Ninety percent of people signed on to North Liberty, including agreeing to increase their taxes. So that any number of people that would be in favor of Coralville would have to come from that other 10%. The big difference is that in Neuzil’s version of the resolution it buries the importance that the people by and large favor North Liberty. This really does belong in the resolution and it is compatible with state law where the state code specifically says citizens.
Paul addressed the other point on the annexation issue by pointing out there is still a reference to the fringe area agreements in the “whereas”. The fringe area agreement between North Liberty and Coralville expired in November and did not expire without consideration, nor by accident. The fringe area agreement was entered into at a time when there were a lot of people who felt that North Liberty was in the clutches of development interests which influenced this fringe area agreement and there is no desire by the Council in North Liberty at this time to extend that fringe area agreement. Paul is curious why this resolution refers to this fringe area agreement when those fringe area agreements do not exist. Paul also said thank you to the Board of Supervisors for their time and consideration, the citizens do appreciated it, and they are paying attention.
J.C. McKean stated that he did a job last summer and sent a bill to the wrong department. After a busy season McKean had a chance to check his accounts receivables and noticed that the bill was unpaid, so McKean wrote up another bill with interest from this time and brought it down to the County department. McKean was told that since he initially sent the bill to the wrong department McKean did not have the right to charge interest on it. McKean was informed that he would have to address this issue with the Board of Supervisors because the bill is ok; however, the interest is not acceptable. McKean clarified his story, by stating that he actually did not send a bill, instead he received an overdue tax bill sent by Treasurer Tom Kris. Essentially it is the same scenario except for McKean is on the receiving end of it. McKean, his wife, and daughter bought a new home in the area in early July and he recently received this overdue tax bill. McKean came down to the Administration Building to find out the reason why he had received the overdue tax bill and was happy to pay his taxes as he always has. McKean was informed that the Tax Department doesn’t update records except for every six-months, so they apparently sent the bill for McKean’s taxes to the former owners who probably found it in the mail and possibly threw it away. So, now McKean got this overdue notice in the mail along with an interest charge and the Treasurer’s office explanation is that it is not their responsibility to get the bill to him it is his responsibility to have known that he needed to come down here and asked for his bill. McKean’s reason for being at the Board of Supervisors meeting is because he doesn’t feel that he should be charged interest on this bill that was misrouted through no fault of his own. McKean added that he is perfectly happy to pay his taxes; however, he would like this interest taken off the bill.
Adjourned at 11:06 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary