MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MAY 22, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: Renewal to Department of Human Services Contract for Functional Family Therapy........................................................................................................................... 2
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: New Contract with Department of Human Services for Decat Coordination Services........................................................................................................................... 2
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: New Contract with Department of Human Services for Volunteer Services....................................................................................................................................... 2
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: New Contract with Department of Human Services for Detention Alternative Program Services............................................................................................................. 3
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: Renewal of Contract with Linn County for Juvenile Detention Services. 3
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: Information Sharing on North Liberty Youth Leadership Program. 4
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: Appointments to the Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board....................................................................................................................................... 4
SEATS Director Tom Brase: SEATS 28E Agreement Between the City of Coralville and Johnson County 5
SEATS Director Tom Brase: SEATS 28E Agreement Between the City of University Heights and Johnson County....................................................................................................................................... 5
SEATS Director Tom Brase: SEATS 28E Agreement Between the City of Lone Tree and Johnson County 5
SEATS Director Tom Brase: SEATS 28E Agreement Between the City of Solon and Johnson County 5
SEATS Director Tom Brase: Appointments to the Johnson County SEATS Paratransit Advisory Committee 6
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: FY09 Non-Bargaining Pay Plan Including COLA and Job Classification Listing.............................................................................................................................. 6
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: Establishing FY09 Health/Dental Care Self-Funded Rates 7
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: Wellmark Binder Agreement........................... 8
Reports and Inquiries From Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan................................................... 8
Board of Supervisors: Proposed Property Line for Joint Emergency Communications Center....... 9
Board of Supervisors: Appointments to the Commission of Veterans Affairs............................. 19
County Engineer Greg Parker, Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, and Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: Eagle Avenue......................................................................... 20
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:25 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia said this is a renewal to a contract between the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Board. She said it is funded with Juvenile Court dollars that are transferred to the Johnson County Decategorization Board for the purpose of providing funding to support functional family therapy (an evidence-based practice) with families that are involved in the Juvenile Court System in Johnson County. Correia said in the last fiscal year the program served 58 families. She said the contract requires that the Board enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with another party to provide the services. Correia said the Board has a memorandum with Four Oaks Agency to provide training and therapists. Correia said the contract is very easy to administer. Stutsman asked how much the contract is for. Correia said the contract is for $108,556.
Correia said this a new contract between the Department of Human Services and the Board to cover a portion of her time to administer the local Decat Board, which includes coordinating materials for monthly meetings, coordinating funding requests for proposals, writing contracts, monitoring contracts; and processing payment invoices and financial reporting. She said Social Services Accountant Kathy Lynch also assists in the financial end of duties. Correia said there is a current contract in place, which expires on June 30, 2008, and had two renewals on it. Correia said the County needs to enter into this contract to continue that relationship. She said the contract is for $16,000. Meyers asked if the money comes from the Department of Human Services. Correia said the money comes from the State, goes through the local Decat Board to the County, and then into Department 45. She said it covers part of her salary for coordinating the efforts of the Decat Board.
Correia said this is a new contract between the Department of Human Services and the Board to work with local volunteers. She said Social Worker Dave Moran works most closely with the contract, which is for $7,462. Correia said there are volunteers from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) as well as the general community and the University of Iowa. She said there is a similar contract in place, which expires on June 30, 2008. She said the contract funds cover volunteer recognition and volunteer mileage. Stutsman asked if the contract covers volunteers that work with DHS. Correia confirmed.
Correia said the County currently funds the Detention Alternative Program out of Department 27. She said the Chief Juvenile Court Officer has transferred $13,000 to the Johnson County Decat Board to help support the program, which the Four Oaks Agency operates. Correia proposed that the Board enter into a contract with DHS to increase the funding available for the service. She said the Detention Alternative Program is a diversionary program that keeps kids, when appropriate, out of the Linn County Detention Center, at significant savings to the County. Correia explained that one night in a Detention Center costs the County $221 per youth; one day in detention alternative program costs the County $75. Correia said the County allocates $50,000 for the Detention Alternative Program through Juvenile Court Services so the $13,000 would bring the total allocated to $63,000. Stutsman said she and Meyers serve on the Decat Board and they had a meeting on May 19, 2008. She said the Decat Board approved all the contracts to be forwarded on to the Board of Supervisors. Stutsman added that Correia does an awesome job of monitoring contracts and giving complete reports to the Decat Board.
Harney asked Correia to explain to the public what Decat is. Correia said Decat is also known as the Johnson County Decat Board and is a locally designated board that receives State and Federal dollars to use through local planning processes for child abuse prevention and juvenile delinquency prevention. She said Decat also works with families that are involved in both child welfare and the Juvenile Justice System to help decrease their level of involvement.
Correia said the current contract with the Linn County Board of Supervisors for reserved bed space at the Linn County Detention Center for Johnson County youth expires on June 30, 2008. Correia said that she, R. Sullivan, and Stutsman serve on the Linn/Johnson Juvenile Detention Committee that meets quarterly to assess how the contract and services are going. Correia noted that Johnson County increased the set aside number of beds at the Linn County Detention Center for Johnson County youth to six. This was up from three beds and Correia noted that the increase has served the County well. She said the proposal is to enter into a renewal contract with a one-year renewable option. Correia said Linn County has proposed a 3% increase in the daily rate for both FY09 and FY10. She said this would increase the daily rate from $221 in FY08 to $228 in FY09 and $235 in FY10. Correia said the County contracts for 6 beds a day, which would amount to an increase of $14,500 in FY09 and an increase of $15,000 in FY10.
R. Sullivan said a lot of people don't realize how much Johnson County spends on juvenile detention. He said it is well over $500,000 per year. He said it could be a lot worse if there wasn't an agreement with Linn County. He said this is a case of a very good cooperative effort between governmental entities. R. Sullivan said Linn County even built their new Juvenile Detention Center just north of Swisher so it is easily accessable by Johnson County Deputies and parents of Johnson County juveniles. He said it is a great facility that provides great information. R. Sullivan added that the Linn/Johnson Juvenile Detention Committee has been a very good working relationship. Correia said it is a good facility that offers school and programming to its juvenile residents.
Correia said the process will be to put the contract renewal on the formal agenda and if passed by the Board it would be forwarded to Linn County and the Linn County Board of Supervisors.
Correia said she and Moran oversee the Community Partnership and were approached by North Central Junior High Student Advocate Bill Freeney of North Liberty about partnering a Youth Leadership Employment Program with North Liberty youth and engaging the business community. She said she and Moran agreed to assist with the project by finding a social work student doing field experience. Correia said they found University of Iowa Student Sarah Dozall who joined the project in April. She said the program is up and running and have ten youth between the ages of 13 and 14 participating. She said they are working with Junior Achievement and have attended the North Liberty Chamber Group meeting to get local businesses involved. She said the J.M. Swank Company, the University of Iowa Credit Union, Chik-Fil-A, and the North Liberty Recreation Center are all interested. Correia reiterated that the program is up and running and commented that she thinks it's going to be a good summer for the youth of North Liberty.
Correia said all of the current members of the Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board are interested in being reappointed for a term ending on June 30, 2011. She said it is a new board so the first terms were staggered and all of the members seeking reappointment served for only one year. Correia said there is one new applicant who does seem like a good candidate. She said she doesn't know how the Board usually handles reappointments. R. Sullivan said the Board will submit their choices to Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan so the appointments can be done the following week.
Johnson County SEATS Director Tom Brase said the 28E Agreement between the City of Coralville and Johnson County is for the period of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013 for Paratransit service. He said the contract is for the amount of $154,661 for FY09, $160,461 for FY10, $166,478 for FY11, $172,721 for FY12, and $179,198 for FY13. He said the County has previously contracted with the City of Coralville and it works well because there is one centralized Paratransit service that serves all of Johnson County. Brase said he recommends that the Board move the agreement on to next week's agenda for approval. R. Sullivan said Brase has said that the County's agreements have a built-in clause that if gas goes above a certain dollar amount then the County is allowed to charge a little more to the contracts. He asked if that is still correct. Brase confirmed that is correct with Iowa City and Coralville. R. Sullivan asked if there is interest in moving the agreement forward. Stutsman said yes.
Brase said the 28E Agreement between the City of University Heights and Johnson County is for the period of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 for Paratransit service in the amount of $8,278.32. He said the set rate varies depending on ridership and last year the ridership wasn't very high so they kept the rate at $8,278.32 for this year. Brase said the City of University Heights is a separate entity. He informed the Board that Assistant County Attorney R. Scott Finlayson revised the 28E Agreement quite a bit because it was originally written in 1978. Stutsman asked if it is a yearly contract. Brase confirmed, but said that his department hopes to make it into a five-year contract in the future. He said he recommends moving the agreement forward. R. Sullivan asked if there is interest in moving the agreement forward. Stutsman said yes.
Brase said the 28E Agreement between the City of Lone Tree and Johnson County is for the period of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 for Paratransit service for two additional days of service per week for the amount of $7,020.00. He said that is a 4% increase from last year to cover fuel, pay raises, and other expenses. Brase said Solon has a volunteer program that assists on the other two days. R. Sullivan said the agreement will be moved forward to next week's agenda.
Brase said the 28E Agreement between the City of Solon and Johnson County is for the period of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 for Paratransit service. He said that Solon and Lone Tree subsidize riders and pay $1 towards each rider’s fare. He said the agreement also covers meal service on the days that the Paratransit service is in Solon. Harney asked how many days meal service is provided. Brase replied three days a week; on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. R. Sullivan asked if there is interest in moving the agreement forward. Stutsman said yes.
Brase said after a member has served two consecutive terms on the Johnson County Paratransit Advisory Committee they ask that they be replaced by a new member in accordance with the bylaws. He said there are two members who had served two consecutive terms and include, Chair Lynn Stamus and Rural Rider Chris Reynolds. Brase said a former member of the Paratransit Advisory Committee, Nancy Ostrognai, has applied to be a member. He said Ex-Official and Rider Mark Rahe is moving to a member position and the position of Ex-Official will be filled by Goodwill's Ann Trotter. Brase said he has received their applications and input and recommends them to the Board of Supervisors. R. Sullivan said the appointments will be passed on to M. Sullivan for the following week's agenda.
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek said at the end of every Collective Bargaining season the Board determines the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for the non-bargaining employees. She said the Board budgeted 3.25% (based on the administrative unit settlement that was in the second year of a two-year agreement) and historically has always followed the Administrative Unit. Shramek said she is sure non-bargaining employees wouldn't mind if the Board wanted to give more than that, but the majority of the settlements were in the area or 3.5%. Stutsman asked Shramek if that is traditionally what the Board has done. Shramek confirmed. Stutsman said she is OK with that. R. Sullivan said there is general agreement for the pay plan so it will be moved forward to the following week's formal agenda.
Shramek said there are recommended job evaluation changes and a job classification listing with respective colors. She said the eight yellow positions are new positions. She said one is from the previous year and three are from the reorganization with the Johnson County Public Health Department. Shramek said the Assistant Health Director and Disease Prevention Manager positions were replaced by the Deputy Director position. She said the Health Promotion Manager and the Assessment Manager positions were replaced with the Community Health Division Manager. Shramek said there are new positions of the Health Promotion Coordinator and Aging Specialist. She said in the Facilities area there is the position of Maintenance Supervisor and in the Emergency Management area there is position of Emergency Management Planner. Shramek said it also includes the temporary Jail Alternatives Mobile Crisis Team Leader.
Shramek said the blue positions are all from the Johnson County Attorney's Office. She said the County Attorney’s Office used to have five levels of Assistant County Attorneys. She said she has been working with former Johnson County Attorney Pat White to address the lower end of the pay scale because the County is not competitive. Shramek said based on the last Assistant County Attorney survey and Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness' input, the best thing to do would be to eliminate the bottom two pay levels. She said by eliminating pay grades 19 and 20, the County is left with pay grades 21, 23, and 25. Shramek said the County can rename the remaining pay grades 1, 2, and 3. R. Sullivan asked if the change will affect the way people move through the step process. Shramek said it will. R. Sullivan asked if it will be more difficult to go from, say, step one to step two. Shramek said it means there will be more time between positions. She said before, the County was constantly doing payroll authorizations to move people up. Shramek said there is not necessarily a difference in the cases handled at the lower level. Stutsman asked Shramek if she had worked things out with Lyness. Shramek said she had. Stutsman said OK.
Shramek said the green position is the only job reevaluation that the County has this year. She said the position is for the Medical Examiner Investigator formerly at pay range 17 and her recommendation is that it go to range 18. Shramek said the position’s pay range should be higher because of the physical requirements and the work environment. R. Sullivan asked if there were any questions. He thanked Shramek for laying things out clearly.
Shramek said because the County has the Self-Funded Plan the Board has to determine what funding level they want for single and family coverage. She said the Wellmark increase was around 5%. Shramek said that although they have already received the increase amount from Wellmark, the Board cannot take formal action until they receive the final rates later this month. Shramek said claims are projected at 5.67%; however, administrative and stop loss fees are decreasing at 0.5% because the employee numbers have surpassed the 500 mark. She said there are 504 enrollees on the plan – 202 single and 302 family. Shramek said during the past year, claims alone exceeded $3.8 million. She said that suggested funding for next year is almost $4.7 million. She said to put this into perspective, the Auditor’s Office will process payments every week for $90,000 to cover the weekly draw. Shramek said there were seven claimants incurring 18% of the costs this year, compared to just one claimant incurring 3% last year.
Shramek said the current monthly rates are $356.90 for single and $1000.00 for family. She said historically the County has funded the Health Care Plan slightly higher than the estimated suggested rates as they do not include compliance fees such as 513C, 509A, actuarial costs, etc. Shramek said the Health Care Fund balance has steadily improved to $3 million. R. Sullivan asked Shramek where the Health Care Fund balance should be, based on pool size. Shramek said the County should have at least six months' worth of claim dollars saved up; going under three months' worth of claim dollars will put the County in the danger zone. R. Sullivan said the County is not quite there. Shramek said they are doing good right now. She said she recommends going with the Wellmark suggestions of $376.38 for single and $1,044.44 for family.
Shramek said this past year the County contributed almost $34,000 to the Medicare Carveout Plan, which equals about $1,000 per participant. She said the current monthly rate is $251.96. Shramek said in the past Wellmark has noted that other companies assess retirees the same amount used to self-fund current employees. She said although everyone on this plan is Medicare prime, this year the actual cost was $340.18 per participant per month, which is close to the employee single rate of $356.90. Shramek said this would represent a 35% increase over the current rate, which is significant when an individual is on a fixed income. She said she thinks that is too high for one year and her suggestion for the Medicare Carveout Plan is to increase the rate of $251.96 by 17.5% (which is half the increase of where the costs were this year). Shramek said this would reduce the monthly contribution difference between the single employee and retiree coverage from $105 to $80. She said it is important to note that last year’s expenditures did not exceed revenues and there was no cost increase.
Shramek said the County's Dental Care Plan costs with Wellmark are increasing about 6% overall for next year. She said claims are projected at 6% and administrative fees are increasing about 4%. Shramek said there are 457 enrollees on the plan – 275 single and 182 family. She said she recommends approving the self-funded monthly rates for dental care for $26.90 for single and $77.00 for family, which reflects the 5.5% increase for employees. Shramek said everybody is at $30 for family rates on the Collective Bargaining side with the exception of one unit held at $25. She said for the health care coverage contribution for non-bargaining employees effective July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 she recommends a $5 increase to bring the total to $30.
Shramek said the Wellmark Binder Agreement, which is effective July 1, 2008. She said the Board needs to authorize and sign the agreement before Wellmark will draft the official contracts, which the Board will also need to sign. R. Sullivan asked if there was interest in moving this to next week's formal agenda. The Board confirmed.
M. Sullivan said the Board will have a Johnson/Linn County Public Leadership Group Meeting in North Liberty at 5 p.m. on May 22, 2008. He said there will be a Joint Cities Meeting with the City Councils of Iowa City, Coralville and North Liberty and the Iowa City Community School District School Board on May 28, 2008 at 4 p.m. at the Coralville City Hall.
Recessed at 10:00 a.m.; reconvened at 10:07 a.m.
Neumann Monson Architect Bill Hoefer said he is the architect for the Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications Center. He said that he was in front of the Board to look at a revised property location for the Communications Center. He said the boundary extends about 125 feet west of the Chatham Oaks' driveway. Hoefer stated that he moved the boundary as far east as possible. Hoefer said they are able to avoid a large natural gulley and move the building and the site both a total of 155 feet further east so the property line is 20 feet east of Chatham Oaks' driveway and parking lot. He said originally the parking had the potential to be removed to make room for Chatham Oaks, but that will no longer be required. Hoefer said there is sufficient space for a security ditch around the front and the back of the property. He said as a result of shifting the property line, more fill is required, so he proposes building a ditch around the entirety of the building to protect the building from unauthorized vehicle access. Hoefer said having a ditch all the way around the building should also provide a more uniform appearance. He said that a ditch will provide the same level of protection as the berm that was originally planned for the sides of the building. He said it will actually provide a more friendly look to the building.
Hoefer said the entire building and parking lot will now be south of the tree line that exists behind Chatham Oaks so the building will be more out-of-view and hidden. He said previously there was a storm water contention base on the south end that will need to be part of the property description because the site has moved so close to a natural gulley. Stutsman asked if that is where the additional one acre comes in. Hoefer said originally the site was 4.17 acres plus 0.4 acres for a total of 4.57 acres. He said it was shown as additional acreage because he wasn't sure if it would be part of the property lease or not. R. Sullivan said for this proposal it is clearly part of the lease. Hoefer confirmed. He said the actual site hasn't grown, but the contention base is further outside the boundary. Meyers asked Hoefer if a dike will have to be built on the lower end of the storm water detention. Hoefer confirmed and explained that there will be an outlet that will feed the storm water into the natural gulley on the property.
Harney said the downside of moving the facility over is that the tower moves further away from the Joint Emergency Communications Center itself, which will result in the loss of considerable output and other problems. He said another downside is the tower can't be moved because there is more fill and it will raise the costs. Hoefer said he will work with the radio consultant to determine the cost of extra conduit to the tower. He said that is one of the reasons he is considering building a ditch all the way around the site. Harney said another downside is that moving the facility will restrict the possibility of future expansions considerably. Hoefer said there are still some opportunities for expansion. He said the parking lot could be relocated. Meyers asked if the relocation will affect the communication lines that come into the property. Hoefer said no. He said the lines will all come from Melrose Drive so they should be unaffected. Harney said a combination of microwaves and hard fiber lines could be used as back up.
Chatham Oaks Executive Director Vivian Davis said it would certainly be preferable to have the Joint Emergency Communications Center further away from Chatham Oaks and its parking lot. She said having it closer would detract from the serene, park-like environment of Chatham Oaks. She said many residents enjoy walking outside and spend a great deal of time outside. Davis said there are also a number of residents who are delusional and having a Communications Center at the end of the parking lot will cause them distress and bring on some delusional thinking regarding what is going on in the building and what the tower is for. She said as a citizen of Johnson County she likes the idea of having the center more hidden because otherwise, she thinks it will detract from the historical value and appearance of the County Farm. Davis said the center just doesn't fit with the environment and it would be preferable to have a park there instead. She said anything done to keep the center more hidden and further away from Chatham Oaks will be greatly appreciated. Meyers asked Davis if she was comparing the current proposal to the one from the previous week. Davis said yes. Meyers asked Davis what proposal she prefers. Davis said she definitely prefers the current proposal. She said it is more preferable to have the center even further away from Chatham Oaks, but realizes that may not be an option.
Stutsman asked how many people will be working in the facility on a typical day. Johnson County Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson said about a dozen people on average. R. Sullivan said he appreciates that Hoefer moved the site farther east because he thinks it is a much better location. He said he still feels the footprint is too big and that a lot could be done to make it smaller. R. Sullivan said he wanted to see the smaller footprint with the building located farther south and east. He said he thought that would happen when the Board authorized the site. He said he is still not satisfied, but does appreciate all of Hoefer's work to move the building farther east. Stutsman asked R. Sullivan whether he wishes for a smaller footprint from the building or the area around it. R. Sullivan said primarily he is talking about the lot and in particular the parking lot. He said he has issues with the proposed 80 parking spaces. He noted that Wilson said only twelve people will be working there on a regular day. R. Sullivan said he understands that the number of parking spots is ideal according to the United States Department of Defense , but isn't sure if it is necessary.
Hoefer said with the design of the land, the emphasis will be on making a boundary. He said they will be building a three-foot ditch with natural growth. He said hopefully if the area does become a park, the prairie grass will help make the facility more invisible. R. Sullivan said in terms of vision and thinking long-term, he is concerned about sticking the facility as far east as possible and closer to the interstate. He said the current proposal features property that is more desirable than the area by the interstate. Stutsman said she and Wilson went to the property because she wanted to see visuals and the lay of the land. She said she almost prefers the site in the current proposal than the one by the interstate because the site in the current proposal seems to congregate buildings in one area. Stutsman said she thought the facility would be hidden by a ridge, but it won't be. She said it will be very visible. Meyers asked if Stutsman was talking about the far east side. Stutsman said she was. She said by keeping everything together there will be more open space to preserve more of the County Farm for a park or an open area, versus having things chopped up and buildings all over the place. R. Sullivan said he wants the facility behind Melrose Ridge so it would still be close to the other buildings, but not in the middle. Hoefer said the actual site available behind Melrose Ridge is not large enough for the footprint. R. Sullivan said the area is not large enough for the projected building and parking lot, but he thinks the projects are too big.
Harney said the Joint Communications Center Subcommittee rehashed the site relocation repeatedly, but the Board is here to make a decision whether to allow the facility to be placed on the property or not. He said the interstate and the train system will make it costly to do things like fill and sewer lines on the County Farm property. Harney said the potential for possible hazardous waste spill on the interstate is much greater being that much closer to the interstate and might affect the facility and the footprint. He said the committee rehashed the proposal for a year and this is the design they came up with. Harney said he thinks it's workable and in the best interest of the citizens and the community for the services that are to be provided. He said yes, the facility could be placed elsewhere, but the Joint Communication Center Subcommittee could not reach an agreement on somewhere else. R. Sullivan said the facility could remain in the area, but have 60 less parking spaces and a lot less ground around it. Harney said that could be said of any of the buildings the County is putting up. He said he thinks the site is operational and in the best interests of the community.
Wilson said he has been out to the site several times. He said he and Meyers talked about the site the previous week. He said if the Board is looking for a site that is visually low-impact the only visible part that will be seen of Chatham Oaks beyond the tree line is the second floor. Wilson said therefore it stands to reason that the only part of the facility Chatham Oaks residents and workers can see will be the second floor down. He said the tree line will make a big impact on blocking the facility and will move it quite a bit further away from Chatham Oaks. He said it will be substantially further away and less impacting visually than the site by the interchange. Wilson said the site by the interstate would pose a greater risk because of the interstate stuff and would certainly make the facility much more visible. R. Sullivan said the visual impact is less of an issue to him than the financial impact and the long-term availability of land out there for other purposes.
Meyers said his thinking was the same as R. Sullivan's and a lot of the discussion that took place last week could have been avoided if there was a little more sharing of information about how decisions were arrived at. He said in the future, it could be avoided if the Board and the City Councils were kept better informed. Stutsman said having the meeting minutes will help the Board members. She said she spoke with Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell and suggested that during the first week of every month the Board receive an update from the Joint Communications Center Subcommittee to help keep the lines of communication open. Meyers said the facility is going on County property, but he assumes the other City Councils would have some interest in the discussion. He said Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Executive Director Jeff Davidson and Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey were at a Board meeting back in March. R. Sullivan said he didn't know to ask them how the acreage went from three to five acres. Meyers said that is his point; when there is a big change the Board should be kept in the loop. Harney said that change was brought to the Board right away. Neuzil said it was a change that is hard to un-change with regards to design and schematics.
Neuzil said he has been against locating the Communications Center on the County Farm and he thinks the relocation of property lines makes it even worse. Neuzil said he has also been against the interstate location, but he thinks the County Farm is an even worse location. He said he will not be supporting the current proposal because he thinks there is still an opportunity for the Board to find another location for the Communications Center. Stutsman asked Neuzil if he is talking about not having the Communications Center on the County Farm at all. Neuzil said that is what he voted for a couple months ago and he hasn't changed his mind. Stutsman and Harney asked Neuzil what he is suggesting. Neuzil said he is suggesting going back to the drawing board. Harney said the Board did suggest another location, but Neuzil was also against it. Neuzil said no, he was against the location of the County Farm and asked Harney to tell him another suggested location. He said there isn't another location. Harney said there were several of them. Neuzil repeated Harney should name them.
Stutsman said she thinks all the Board members have been concerned with the project costs that will continue to escalate. She said part of the appeal of putting the center on the County Farm is that there will be no land costs, but going back to the drawing board to find a new location will increase costs. Neuzil agreed. Stutsman said it's a big, joint project and neither the County nor the cities has been involved in something of this scale. She said it's a challenge to keep things in place and move them along and she doesn't think the Board is served well by continually trying to redirect or relocate the project. Stutsman said the County Farm site is not perfect, but will serve the County's needs today and in the future. She said the bottom line is that it will serve the public safety of the entire community including the rural residents who will be much better served by having the better communications systems. Stutsman said she weighs all those things with giving up land on the County Farm. She said she is glad where the project is, not where it was projected before. She said regarding the parking lot, part of the reason for having a Joint Emergency Communications Center is for emergencies like tornadoes. Stutsman said to her it will be more disruptive for Chatham Oaks residents if all of a sudden there are 50 cars parking on the asylum's grass because there isn't enough available parking. R. Sullivan said the Chatham Oaks residents will be disrupted anyway if there is a tornado. Stutsman said exactly and asked why add to it by not having enough parking. R. Sullivan said it's frustrating to him that the County is building for something that happens one or two days every seven or eight years. He said that having cars park on the grass for one or two days out of seven or eight years is not asking too much.
Stutsman asked Wilson if there will be training involved. Wilson responded that there would and added that there were three Presidential Disaster Declarations in the last ten years in Johnson County. He said to shout those numbers isn't accurate and said there has been an escalation in disaster declarations. Wilson said he just closed down a Presidential Disaster Declaration for an ice storm and noted that weather never seems to be on their side. He said his department is planning on using the center on a regular basis for public safety and other governmental agency training so it will be not be sitting dormant like a white elephant. Wilson said that with the use of the building for appropriate training comes a need to have security around the building. He said his department is combining multiple public safety Dispatch Centers into one. He said if they lose the Joint Communications Center, they are out of the game. Wilson asked where people are going to park. R. Sullivan said that County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek has said the County does not have a very good training facility. He said the Board only knows about fire training things in Coralville and Iowa City. Wilson said those buildings have inadequate seating and can only be used for outdoor evolutions. He said the idea for the center was to create a dual use for the space. R. Sullivan said that was not very well explained to the public or the Board members. He said the Board has ended up with something much bigger than he ever envisioned and he still feels there has been a lack of communication the whole way through. Wilson said sure. Harney said he thinks it's prudent that R. Sullivan ask every once in while if he doesn't think he is getting the proper information. He said what really happened is that when the decision was made by everyone to make the center an Emergency Operations Center and include Emergency Management, the facility required more space and went from being small to large. R. Sullivan asked how he is supposed to know what questions to ask. He said it is incumbent of the people who make the changes to inform others of the changes. Wilson said a lot of the people on the Joint Communications Center Policy Board were under the impression that stuff was being communicated to the Board of Supervisors and he is surprised the Board isn't more aware. He said he agrees and has always had an open-door policy. R. Sullivan said he doesn't mean to pick on any one person, but said the communication on the project clearly isn't what it should be. Wilson apologized as one of the members of the Policy Board and repeated that he thought communication was being relayed by someone else. He said his group is trying to be as fiscally responsible as they can and trying not to outgrow the facility. Wilson said his group came up with what he thinks is a good location with adequate security. He said yes, the footprint will be a little bigger, but the facility will be aesthetically pleasing and not obtrusive.
R. Sullivan said frankly there has been all kinds of coverage in the papers and all kinds of people decrying the County budget is too high. He said all the Board members have had to hear about it and obviously the project has been out of their hands. R. Sullivan said this is the first opportunity the Board has had to weigh in, in terms of financial impact. Harney agreed somewhat, but said R. Sullivan approved a facility out at Kent Park even though the Board never even had a drawing or a sketch of what the building would look like. He said the Board is here to approve or not approve a location, not to redesign the project and he is ready to move on. R. Sullivan said the Board needs to discuss the project because it's the only opportunity they will have to discuss this because if they vote 'yes' next week the project is done. Chappell clarified that there isn’t anything the Board can vote 'yes' on the next week. R. Sullivan asked if a lease is ready. Chappell confirmed that a lease is not yet ready and explained that they will have to go through the public hearing process for a lease. Chappell said he is not entirely convinced that the Joint Communications Center Policy Board is ready to do a lease yet. He said he has had some conversations with Davidson and they do not have bylaws yet. R. Sullivan said OK. Chappell reiterated there isn't going to be a vote next week to convey any interest in real property by the Board. R. Sullivan said OK. Harney said the issue is that the Policy Board cannot move forward unless the Board of Supervisors gives them some acknowledgement to move ahead. He said the Policy Board won't be able continue with the design and it will push the project back. Chappell said that was correct. Chappell stated that when the Board has enough information, they need inform the Joint Communications Center Policy Board whether they are in favor of the plan and whether it is appropriate to move forward with the lease.
R. Sullivan said he was acting in good faith that the site would consist of 3.07 acres and would be farther east and south. Stutsman asked what would have to change for the site to remain 3.07 acres. Hoefer said the jump from three to four or five acres is solely because of the storm water contention base that the City of Iowa City requires. Chappell asked if the City of Iowa City is okay with the location of the tower in relation to the building. Hoefer stated that Iowa City Planning and Community Development has not seen the location of the tower. Hoefer noted that the ordinance for the zoned district is to keep towers 200 feet from residential areas. Hoefer said that tower would not be within 200 feet of a residential area. Chappell commented that he wasn’t sure if there was any requirement that the tower be separated from the tower itself. Hoefer said there was not.
Neuzil said he wanted to make it clear that he has been supportive of the Communications Center through budgeting and was supportive of all the suggested locations except the County Farm. He said it's important for people to understand that that is where he has been from the very beginning. Neuzil said he asked the Policy Board to not put the Communications Center on the County Farm and he wants that to go on the record. He said there still is an opportunity and the Board still has time to reconsider the location. Harney said when the Board suggested putting the Communications Center across the street, Neuzil said no. Stutsman asked Harney if he meant Carquest. Harney confirmed. Neuzil said that he did not say no to the Carquest location. Harney said Neuzil did. Neuzil said he would go on record to tell the people of the community that he did not. R. Sullivan said people can go back to the minutes if they want to check that out.
Stutsman asked if the Board wanted to give direction to the Policy Board that they want the Communications Center on three acres. R. Sullivan said part of him wants to do that, but that he feels like the train has already left the station. He said he feels like the Board lost any ability to put any restrictions on the project long ago. Stutsman agreed. R. Sullivan said the last tangible piece of information he had was that the site was going to be 3.07 acres and way off to the side. He said that is what he had hoped to see, but it isn't what the Board got. R. Sullivan said it doesn't sound like there is any interest from the Joint Communications Center Subcommittee in changing anything so they will be stuck at an impasse. Stutsman agreed. R. Sullivan said the public who is calling and complaining about the budget, should call and complain to the members of the Joint Communications Center Subcommittee instead. Stutsman agreed and said that is an option.
Meyers asked Wilson how often the training meetings will take place. Wilson said his plan is to hold training sessions on three out of the five workdays per week. He said there is presently a change in direction on the utilization of the similar Linn County Emergency Operations Center. Wilson said Linn County is looking to restrict the use of the space of their Emergency Operations Center. He explained that there are a lot of Regional and State meetings presently being held there, which will need to be housed elsewhere. Wilson said they plan to bring those to Johnson County. He said the training meetings are for everyone including Public Works, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and law enforcement, public health departments, and fire departments. Meyers said it is not just for Johnson County. Wilson said that there are Johnson County constituents that would be involved. R. Sullivan asked Wilson if he is going to try to the use the Communications Center as frequently as possible. Wilson said absolutely. Meyers asked what Linn County's reason for not wanting meetings at its Emergency Operations Center was. Wilson said Linn County’s Emergency Operations Facility is located on the campus of Kirkwood Community College and there has been a change in direction and leadership there. Meyers asked if all the training sessions will be done gratis for the groups. Wilson said it would be a benefit for the County because otherwise the County would have to pay for people to travel significant distances to attend the meetings. He said although there will not be a charge to host meetings at the Joint Communications Center, by hosting meetings there will be an indirect payback to the County. Chappell said the decision for the use of the building will be made by the Policy Board.
Stutsman said Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek and Harney are the County's representatives on the Joint Communications Center Subcommittee. She asked Pulkrabek what his thoughts are on the building. Pulkrabek said he absolutely supports the new building. He said the Subcommittee has hashed over a lot of things the Board has talked about including the fact that certain supervisors don't want the facility on the County Farm. Pulkrabek said the Subcommittee has reached the same conclusion that the Board of Supervisors has—the proposed site isn't perfect. He said the Subcommittee has applied for a Firefighter’s Grant that is a potential $1,000,000. Pulkrabek said if the grant is awarded, they will have twelve months to use the money or it goes away. He said if the Board of Supervisors and the Subcommittee can't come to an agreement or the Subcommittee is sent back to the drawing board, $1,000,000 could be gone. Pulkrabek said the Joint Communications Center is an excellent project, a very, very large and very expensive project and he has always had empathy for the Board because the new facility will cause a huge tax increase. He said he understands that, but unfortunately the responsibility falls on the Board members. Pulkrabek said many entities campaigned for the project including himself, the League of Women Voters, and the City Councils. He said it is not perfect, but a lot of time and money has been invested in it. Pulkrabek said he wants to encourage the Board to move the project forward and support it even though it is less than ideal. He said regarding extra meetings, his department has had to travel to Kirkwood Community College in Linn County for training sessions and he would rather have the training held locally, and said he'd rather have the food provided locally. Pulkrabek said as a taxpayer he doesn't accept the idea of using the Communications Center only occasionally for meetings; if there are multiple uses for an expensive project they should be utilized.
Stutsman said any time one enters into a project there are always things that come up or change along the way. She said she agrees in using the building for multiple purposes; one of her gripes is that her tax dollars go to schools that sit empty for three months out of every year. Stutsman said using County buildings to their maximum potential is a direction she wants to support. She said she has weighed things including the location and uses of the building and the bottom line is that she wants to continue to move the project forward. Harney said he wants to add that the facility costs have been reduced from the initial planning stages from $24,000,000 to almost $17,000,000. He said the project designers are looking at towers all over the County to see which ones they can and cannot use. Harney said at this point they are down to having to build at least one tower in the southwestern corner of the County because there is nothing there.
Pulkrabek said another problem that came up was the report from the Geocom Consultants that suggested that the facility would cost $6,900,000 or $7,200,000. He said he believes the study was flawed because the consultants were talking about constructing four additional towers to cover the whole County. Pulkrabek said that in the study there were photos of propagation studies that showed the County's radio coverage and right away he thought of Lone Tree. He said Lone Tree had horrible coverage and he told the consultants there is no way four towers will work. Pulkrabek said he doesn't want a firefighter stuck in a burning house in Lone Tree where he can't communicate that he is in trouble. He said he doesn't want a Deputy Sheriff rolling around in a ditch somewhere unable to communicate that he can't get out. Pulkrabek said he has been doing this for a long time and can remember when he was in a mobile home park and had difficulty communicating back to his dispatch center. He said that is not acceptable and that is why the project is where it is. Pulkrabek reiterated that the study was flawed and unfortunately the responsibility falls on the five Board members. He repeated that he supports the project and even though taxes will increase the project will benefit everyone in the County.
R. Sullivan said he doesn't disagree with what Pulkrabek said. He said part of the frustration exists because three supervisors voted for the budget and two supervisors voted against it. Stutsman said she wanted to clarify her vote against the County Budget because it is thrown up in her face all the time. She said what she voted against was all the other projects the Board approved when they knew the Joint Communications Center was going to be a huge financial hit. Stutsman said her thought was that the Board should keep a status quo for everything else on the County Budget, but instead they voted for the Conservation Headquarters Building that will cost $2.2 million and a bunch of stuff in the Health and Human Services Building that could have been taken off the table. She said she even suggested cutting the budget for the Communications Center, which couldn't be done. Stutsman said she voted for the Communications Center in its entirety and said the Board had a responsibility to pull back on everything else, but the Board didn't pull back on anything. She said the Board said yes to everything that came into the room for the budget.
R. Sullivan said when the original discussions were held Neuzil said loudly and clearly that the only way he would support the Joint Communications Center is if the County would continue to move forward with the other things it wanted to do. R. Sullivan said everybody shook their heads in agreement, but that is not what ended up happening. He said the Joint Communications Center has been left off the table in terms of cutting expenses. Harney said R. Sullivan is wrong. He said the cost of the Joint Communications Center was dropped from $24,000,000 to almost $17,000,000. He said he voted against the budget because the Board added another $2,000,000 to it for the Conservation Headquarters Building. He said the Board moved away from the recommendation of the Space Needs Committee and ignored the Strategic Plan laid out for the budget procedures. Harney said he doesn't want to go there. The Board is talking about the Communications Center, which is going to help the people of the County. R. Sullivan said the Space Needs Committee met in 2001 and things changed in seven years. He said he and Meyers weren't even on the Board then so in seven years, 40% of the Board has changed. R. Sullivan said this is not a non-issue, somehow this has been non-negotiable. He said the public beats the Board members up over the budget, but for a long time it has been untouchable. Harney said it is long-term debt that has been created. Stutsman said Chappell needed to clarify something about the budget. Chappell said everyone is getting really far afield from what is really on the table and if the Board really wants to rehash the budget it can be put on a future agenda. R. Sullivan said OK. He asked if there were three supervisors who want to move forward with the project. Stutsman said no. She said she wants Chappell to clarify what the Board members' responsibility is with the Communication Center and the Subcommittee.
Chappell said the Board has dual roles. He said that County is a party in the 28E Entity that is run by the Policy Board. He said the Board has appointed two representatives, Harney and Pulkrabek, who handle the decisions for the Communications Center. Chappell said Board members have another role as stewards of the County property and that is why they hold so many cards. He said nothing will happen on the site unless the Board says it can happen because the Board has that authority since the County owns the County Farm property. Chappell said the discussions about the budget are so political and heated, but the decision was made when the County set up the 28E Entity, that the Joint Communications Center Policy Board would decide what the cost of the Communications Center would be, which is why reductions have been off the table. He said the Board decided that it would utilize its State-given authority to levy the project. He said this was discussed with the Board before they agreed to the 28E Entity. Chappell said it could be said that the Board of Supervisors made public safety a higher priority than anything else because they have relied on the Policy Board to decide what amount of dollars was needed for the project. He said a request for a site is before the Board of Supervisors. As a member of the 28E Entity, the County is being asked to contribute space for the Joint Communications Center. Chappell said from the very early stages, everyone proceeded with the assumption that the Iowa City was going to be the entity that would have to deal with all the questions and issues surrounding the site of the Joint Communications Center. He said it's still in the agreement though it hasn't worked out. Chappell said the Board, as stewards of County property, have to decide whether the site will be located on County property and if so, how big it will be. He said the Board has heard recommendations from its representatives on the Policy Board, the architects, and Wilson, and Davidson. Chappell said the Board is at the point where they have to in good faith, give the Policy Board some direction so the project can keep moving forward. He said if there is absolutely no support to have a site this size or at this location, in all fairness, the Policy Board needs to know so they can figure out what to do next.
R. Sullivan said he heard from most people that they preferred the site that was further east from Chatham Oaks. Stutsman agreed. He asked if there are three, four, or five supervisors who want to move forward. Harney said he does, but it should be clarified that if the Board is not going to be satisfied with the least of that amount of property, they need to know what front to find another location. R. Sullivan said that is what he is asking. Stutsman and Harney said they want to move forward with the current proposal. Meyers said he has mixed feelings and wants the opportunity to walk the fields of the proposed site to get a better feel. Chappell said the Board could give an informal consensus, which would give the Policy Board the confidence to keep planning. He said the Board could have an item on the following week's formal agenda, either a resolution or vote of intent, which would not be binding until the Board went through the public hearing process. He said this would give the Policy Board some directions. R. Sullivan asked the Board members if they are interested in doing that. Stutsman said yes. She said the Board could also give some direction to cut down the size of the project. She asked if the proposed berms are required by law. Wilson said they are recommended, but not required. Meyers asked if there are any grants that are contingent on having berms. Wilson said the Board signed a Mitigation Grant the previous week. He said part of the intent was that the County go forward with mitigation strategies so that the facility could be built to FEMA 361 Mitigation Guidelines. He said they intentionally left some areas on the building softer with the intent that when they go back they are able to show that they’ve met some of the guidelines, which will allow them to ask for more funding in the future. He said his department has tried to show good intent and set the County up as strong a candidate for grants on mitigation hardening and key asset vulnerabilities as possible. R. Sullivan said he wants some kind of guarantee that the site will not get bigger or be moved. Chappell said he will be writing the lease. He said the Board could refuse to sign the lease if something changes. He said the Board of Supervisors is trying to give the Policy Board some direction and if that is the direction, then by all means give it. Chappell said if the Board expresses by vote that they are ready to move forward with the site, then when he drafts the lease, the legal description for the site will be the one on the lease.
Harney said the Board ended up where they are because they looked at several sites as Chappell had indicated, including some cost-prohibitive sites in Coralville. He said they ended up on the current site because of tower locations and the fact that the County already owns the land, which reduces the costs for taxpayers. Harney said the current site is not his first or second choice, but it is what the Policy Board had to work with. Stutsman said ideally the Communications Center would have been where they let the National Guard Armory go, but that is water over the dam now.
Facilities Director Dave Kempf said if any Board members have questions about the site he would encourage them to go out there and physically look at it. He said the Board needs to see the lay of the land. He said the Communications Center could potentially be fitted in the southeast corner of the property, but additional site work would be extensive; possibly resulting in an additional 20% in costs. Kempf said his opinion is that it comes down to the lesser of two evils and to him the current site is more favorable. He said there is a good barrier between the site and Chatham Oaks and he agrees with Stutsman that if the Communications Center is moved southeast it will become more visible.
R. Sullivan said Meyers wants to take a look at the site. He said for what it's worth he is OK with putting an item on the following week's agenda. He said there are three Board members, Harney, Stutsman and himself, willing to move forward with the current site for next week. R. Sullivan said that won't prohibit Meyers from taking a look at the site and commenting on it. Stutsman asked if the Board could plan to have an item on the regular agenda about the Joint Communications Center once a month. R. Sullivan and Meyers agreed that was a good idea. He asked M. Sullivan if he would follow up on Stutsman's suggestion. M. Sullivan said he would do that. R. Sullivan asked Chappell if he and M. Sullivan could work on a resolution. Chappel agreed.
R. Sullivan said there are no new applications for the Commission of Veteran Affairs, for a term ending May 31, 2011, but there are two members whose terms are expiring and are seeking reappointment. M. Sullivan said that is correct. Stutsman asked if there is still another opening. M. Sullivan said there is not. R. Sullivan asked the Board members to get their selections to M. Sullivan for the following week's formal agenda.
R. Sullivan introduced Johnson County Engineer Greg Parker, Johnson County Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, Johnson County Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore, and Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Hackathorn. Parker said Eagle Avenue is located west of Kent Park and south of Highway 6. He said there is a section of it defined as a Level B section of roadway, which means it is unimproved and essentially a dirt road. R. Sullivan said Eagle Road runs north of Highway 6 as well, but is gravel there and not of issue. Parker confirmed. He said he is talking about the section of roadway that is south of Highway 6. Stutsman asked Parker if he is talking about the whole Level B section of the road. Parker said yes. Stutsman asked how long the stretch of the road is. Parker said he has never measured it, but he thinks it is about three-quarters of a mile.
Moore said there is a mobile home park along the stretch of road, but the section of road in question is not a growth area for Johnson County. Parker said the Level A section of Eagle Avenue turns into a Level B section south of Highway 6 going west. He said there are five or six residences near the Level B section of roadway. Parker said the Level B section came to be back when residents had the option of donating up to 66 feet of right-of-way to improve the road. He said residents did not want to donate the 66 feet of right-of-way to the County that was necessary to upgrade the road to a Level A. Harney asked if that was for any of it or for that section only. Dvorak said the scales are not 100% accurate because they are from GIS and not the County Auditor's file. Parker said the land would have to be serviced by a licensed land surveyor to determine exactly where the right-of-way exists. He said he did get a quote last year and the cost to determine where the right-of-way would be just under $8,000. Stutsman asked if that would be the cost for the whole stretch of the road or just the first leg. Parker replied it would be for the entire section of Level B road. Parker said after getting the quote, winter hit and his department went way over their budget because of snow removal and ice control activities. Neuzil said with past practices on any kind of Level B road project, any expenses would come back in front of the Board before Parker's department would move forward. Parker said that was correct. He said that many years ago the County was sued when a tree was cut down on a Level B section of road. He said the Board then determined that the County would not be providing any more services on Level B roads including trimming trees. Parker said it was his understanding that if a resident called the County asking them to trim any trees on Level B roads, the County would give the resident a permit to do it themselves because trimming trees was causing damage to County equipment. He said his department performs one blading in the spring and one blading in the winter. His department has stopped all other maintenance on Level B roads. R. Sullivan asked if the blading is done by request only. Parker confirmed and said that is done to accommodate agricultural activities. Parker said to his knowledge, this is one of the only Level B sections of road in Johnson County that residents live on. Meyers asked if the County removes snow from these types of roads. Parker responded that the County does not perform snow removal services on these roads. Harney said the end result of the lawsuit against the County was that the County had the right to cut the brush in their right-of-way. Chappell stated that the County was successful in that lawsuit. Chappell said the concern in that particular incident was that the County just about cleared the brush and that was displeasing to the resident. Chappell said the Court in that case determined that the County can maintain its right-of-ways any way they see fit. He said the question for the Board is how much maintenance the County will provide on Level B roads. He said to the extent the Board has the desire, the County can always spend more time and money on a road, but it is a matter of the Board making the policy decision and Parker having the funds to follow through.
R. Sullivan said there are a number of areas in the County where there are different types of agreements between private landowners and the County regarding what will take place on Level B roads. He asked if there have been any such agreements between residents of Eagle Avenue and the County. Parker said there has not been a lot of discussion regarding maintenance on Eagle Avenue. He said he didn't know when two of the homes were constructed. Stutsman asked if Dvorak knew. Hackathorn said that one was built in 1990 and one in 1999. R. Sullivan asked about the houses further south and west. Dvorak said the houses further west on Eagle Avenue were there when his department did the zoning in 1990. Stutsman asked if there is rezoning in the area. Dvorak said his department has only done one zoning since 1960. He said there were requests in the 1980s to do more zoning towards the east, but an affidavit was submitted to the County saying that road is as is. R. Sullivan asked if every other house there has been there for some time. Dvorak said that was correct. Harney asked if that was true on the south end as well. Dvorak confirmed.
Neuzil said the Board has started the process of upgrading some Level B roads. He said maybe it might be important to explain what the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) does in regards to the requirements. Parker said when his department spoke with the Board last year, they came up with four projects; two Level B roads and two gravel roads. He said the Board felt they wanted see an updated level of dust control on those roads. For Level B roads, he said one of the stipulations was that property owners would donate the right-of-way to the County, which would allow his department to go in and construct, based on the current guidelines and standards, a road that can be classified as a Level A. Parker said one of the roads is fairly flat without any curves. He said his department explained to the residents on this road that they would need a minimum of 80 feet of right-of-way and possibly more. Parker said in instances where there are horizontal and vertical curve issues, they need more right-of-way because they have to meet minimum design curvature standards. He said on one Level B road there were four residents; three agreed to donate the necessary right-of-way, but one said no. Harney asked what happened in that instance. Parker stated that the Board had instructed him that if he did not get 100% from the residents the project should be pulled and he said that was what happened. He said he has not yet updated the other Level B road yet because of his budget.
Harney asked what the Board's responsibilities are to the residences on Level B roads. He asked if there is a policy where if the right-of-way is less than 66 feet the landowner cost-shares the rock for the stretch of road. Harney asked if the County still has that responsibility on Level B roads. Chappell said he did not follow Harney's question. Chappell said there is no problem having a house on a Level B road, it just means that a resident lives on a really bad road. He said there is question as to whether Level B roads will be maintained. Harney stated that somewhere it’s a policy that if the right-of-way is less than 66 feet, the property owner cost-shares the rock for their stretch of road. Chappell said that isn't a law. Stutsman said it isn't. Harney asked if that was just a County policy. Chappell said it wasn't an ordinance. Chappell said the only ordinance in place relative to Level B roads is one page in the Iowa Code. He said the Code section sets up three road classifications, Levels A, B, and C, but the County doesn't have any Level C roads. Chappell explained that Level C roads are gated and require key entrance. Chappell said there have been one or two requests to go to a Level C road, but they were never followed through with. Stutsman said yes. Chappel said the ordinance describes what will and what will not happen on a Level B road. He said they require signage and a very minimal amount of maintenance as outlined in the Code. Harney asked if it is Secondary Roads' policy to cost-share right-of-ways under 66 feet on gravel roads. Parker said there are several agreements like that between property owners and Secondary Roads because the County does not own full right-of-way. He stated that this policy was created a long time ago. Hackathorn stated that the County probably has 25 such agreements. Harney asked if these decisions were made by Secondary Roads. Parker said these are agreements that were negotiated many, many years ago and have not been changed.
Hackathorn said there has been one agreement changed and stated that he believes Stutsman was on the Board of Supervisors at the time. Stutsman said she was. Hackathorn said it was on Meyer Avenue south of Bayertown Road. He said the landowner wanted to build back there, but there was a big controversy over it. Hackathorn said the County decided the landowner could rock it, but only if he rocked all the way through it and not just to his house. Hackathorn said according to that agreement, his department determines when the surface needs rock and then does it. Hackathorn said they don't plow it unless it's to the County's advantage. R. Sullivan asked if the County provides the rock and the landowner pays for it. Hackathorn said the landowner pays for half and the County pays for the other half. He said most agreements are set up so that landowners wanting to rock their property have to apply for a permit and then he determines if the road needs the rock badly enough. He said because of funding this year, he is turning some applicants down. Hackathorn said his department needs the money for other roads, but if they do approve applications to rock roads the landowners pay for all of it themselves and then are reimbursed for 50% of the costs from the County. Neuzil said most of those driveways are dead ends to the residences. Stutsman said the property on Meyers Road is not. Neuzil said unfortunately homes were built on Level B roads, even though the County hasn't encouraged it for a long time. He said the County has limited resources and dollars to put towards Level B roads and that is why the CIP was created. Neuzil said to him, if there is unanimous support amongst residents to request to the Board that they add their location to the CIP, that is the right process. He said if there are residents on the roadway who don't want to donate the necessary right-of-way then the deal is off the table. Neuzil said that is the approach the Board has taken with other Level B roads in the past and he doesn't know why they would handle this one any differently.
Harney said the Board has had a lot of complaints over the years from farmers who want to cut back the brush with their machinery. He said he thinks the Board ended up allowing that to happen, and now there is the issue of the driveways. Parker said this has been one of the worst years in his history, and added that Hackathorn has said it has also been one of his worst years. He said he drove out and looked at the Level B section of the road and it was in bad shape, but the County has also had Level A roads that are just as bad if not worse. Parker said it's a dirt road; it doesn't have gravel or drainage on it. He said the County hasn't been maintaining it or sending a blade in there. Parker said that the Board has a policy of minimally caring for such roads, and that is what Secondary Roads is doing. Neuzil said one of the areas the Board has struggled with, is making something at least passable. He said that is what he thinks happened with this road in the past year. He said when he drove on the road he reached a point where he could not drive any further, unless he had a vehicle capable of doing it. He asked whether County staff try to fix Level B roads that are impossible to drive on. Parker said no; though his department does get calls from farmers wanting the County to send a blade in so they can access their fields. He said in these cases, Hackathorn will then go out and look at the property and pass the responsibility to the District Operator. Parker said it is then up to the District Operator to determine whether a blade can be sent through, if doing so will make things worse, or if the blade might get stuck.
Hackathorn said that sometimes not maintaining the roads costs the County more in the long run. He said some maintenance is necessary. He said he used to plow snow on Eagle Avenue, and it's changed from when the County used to keep it open year-round for the mail route. Hackathorn said the residents are seeing the maintenance go from one extreme from the other. Chappell said the County had a lawsuit from residents living on Vincent Avenue for a similar situation. He said for years and years there was a farmer on one side of the road and a resident on the other and the farmer was complaining about not being able to get certain equipment onto the property. Chappell said a school bus was even having trouble getting through on the road and there was another instance in which a fire truck had to take a longer route around. He said it was a Level B road and the County didn't do anything about it until County staff needed to move heavy equipment nearby for some other project. Hackathorn said the County decided at that point to fix the road and clear stuff out. He said it was a unique circumstance because it just so happened that County workers were up by the Level B road. Hackathorn confirmed and commented that the farmer on the one side signed encroachment papers so the County could go in and work on the fence line.
R. Sullivan said he had spoken earlier in the morning with Assistant Johnson County Ambulance Director Dave Dvorsky and Dvorsky told R. Sullivan that in this case, his department would try to come into the western-most houses from the west and the eastern-most houses from the east. He said Dvorsky told him, that his department's general policy is to not drive on Level B roads. They only drive on them if they are in an ambulance and have to because they can't take the chance. Hackathorn said the soil conditions of the road change; on the west end it's really sandy and can get muddy. Harney said he has had several conversations with landowners and people residing on Eagle Avenue. He said it seems like landowners don't want anything done on the south end, yet residents want something done to the road. Harney said some residents felt that if the ditches had been grated and cleaned, the water would have run through and not pooled into a muddy spot. He asked if Secondary Roads would at least look at the possibility of grading the ditches and allowing an individual to put rock on that portion of road. Parker said again, that is Board policy, though the Board has told him in the past that grading the ditches would be considered an improvement to the road. He said if his department does one Level B road section, it will get requests from landowners and residents of the other 50 miles of Level B roads in the County. Stutsman asked Parker if he felt that other residents would request improvements on Level B roads. Parker confirmed and stated that they have requests for upgrades to Level B roads all the time. Harney asked Parker if they get requests for many Level B roads with residences on them. R. Sullivan said Osage Road is an example. Dvorak confirmed and stated that the Board put that in the 5 Year Road Plan. Stutsman confirmed that he Board did. R. Sullivan clarified they put it in the CIP. Parker reiterated that if a few property owners wish to improve their road and donate right-of-way, but just one refuses to do so, the County will not make any improvements to or upgrade the road. Hackathorn stated that a small section of Vincent Avenue that is classified as a Level B road and has residents living on it. Parker said that the County has not allowed new homes to be built on Level B roads. Stutsman concurred. R. Sullivan stated that Dvorak has refused to let people build on Level B roads. Dvorak stated that a lot of the homes that were built on what are currently Level B roads were built prior to 1979 when a farm was defined as property consisting of ten or more acres so no building or platting permits were issued by the County. Dvorak said to his knowledge his department has done two zonings since 1979 that have allowed someone on a shared road.
Eagle Avenue Resident Monte Schrock stated that he lives at 2999 Eagle Avenue and said he has concerns about the road. He said that one of two big holes started between his driveway and Eagle Avenue Resident Dean Moore's driveway. He said he is stuck in a corner and cannot get out to the south nor the east. He said that the Iowa State Patrol, the Johnson County Sheriff, Johnson County Ambulance Services, and the Tiffin and Oxford Fire Departments cannot get to them because of the shape the road is in. R. Sullivan asked Schrock to point to his residence on the map. Parker said Schrock's house is the first house on the north side of the road just before the curb. Harney asked Schrock how far his driveway is from the gravel portion of the road. Schrock responded that the distance between his driveway and the minimum maintenance sign is 1,150 feet. He said that he and his wife have chosen to take their daughter to preschool in Tiffin so she doesn't ride the bus yet. He said hopefully in time she will be able to ride the bus. Schrock said the ditch on the south side of the road needs to be dug out so it can drain water, which he feels would take care of a lot of the road problems. Stutsman asked if buses currently go down Eagle Avenue. Schrock responded no, but noted that they did for the previous owner. Meyers asked Schrock how long he has lived on Eagle Avenue. Schrock said he bought the property in 2004.
Eagle Avenue Resident Maureen McCue said she lives at 3043 Eagle Avenue in a 40-year-old house. She said she agrees that the past year has clearly been the worst of the 20 some years that she has lived at her current address. McCue said she wants the Board to consider going back to a joint agreement, which worked for many years with some intermittent problems. She said something happened four years ago and ever since then there has been absolutely no maintenance on the roads. McCue said the trees grew in and made the road dangerous. She said people couldn't get through. She said that Schrock could not get out because of very deep holes. McCue said there are many very large holes on the road. She said that she has typically been able to leave her property because she lives on the south end of Eagle Avenue. She said there is a ditch with ten-foot high walls and if the Board is talking about enlarging it to 80 feet they are talking about a major process and a lot of bulldozing. Parker agreed. She said the joint agreements used before kept everyone relatively happy. R. Sullivan asked if there was some specific change that occurred four years ago. Dvorak said the Board of Supervisors put the Vincent Avenue policy into effect at that time. Chappell said the Vincent Avenue incident happened eight years ago. Parker said the policy changed then. McCue asked if that is really correct. R. Sullivan said it sounds like it. Neuzil commented that he didn't know if it was a policy as much as direction for how to handle overgrown trees. McCue reiterated that the road has deteriorated badly. Neuzil said the County stopped maintaining the road, which let the trees grow in, when County vehicles stopped going down the road. McCue said that County vehicles had been going down the road. R. Sullivan said that was correct, but they since stopped going down them.
Stutsman said she is confused about the four year-old deal because she thought Chappell led the Board to believe that when the County won the lawsuit it won the right to maintain Level B roads. She said she always thought the County was grading the roads once or twice a year and cutting brush if needed. Chappell said he isn't sure what policy everyone is talking about. He said he has worked with Secondary Roads since he began working for the County and when they refer to policy a lot of times they are really referring to past practices. Chappell said he speculates Hackathorn and Parker are referring to a Maintenance Work Session four years ago in which the Board said they were uncomfortable spending that much money on Level B roads. Parker agreed and said when the Board instructs Secondary Roads to complete something, that to him is a policy to be followed. Chappell said four or five years ago there was a pretty big County Budget crunch. Neuzil said he remembers when Former Johnson County Engineer Mike Gardner was present and Hackathorn asked the Board for direction. He said the Board said that if the roads deteriorate to a point that County equipment cannot go down them, then County equipment should not go down the roads until residents acquire a permit to cut back the trees.
Hackathorn said that Secondary Roads gets a lot of complaints about potholes in gravel roads while they are working on Level B roads. He said he once told Stutsman that the County needs to either vacate the Level B roads or grade them. Neuzil said some of that has been started with the CIP and on some occasions, some dirt roads have had to be abandoned. He asked if County staff fix the road or at least blade it twice a year. Hackathorn said they do not because of the trees. Neuzil said the current process has residents applying for permits to cut back trees so the Secondary Roads staff can at least blade twice a year. He asked if Eagle Avenue should be included in a future CIP Upgrade Program. Hackathorn said Schrock calls him quite often about blading his property in a normal year. He said they once had a discussion when Schrock rocked his property. He said Schrock told him not to blade his property until he was called because Schrock didn't want him to cover up his rock. Hackathorn said the problem is that in a normal year residents on Level B roads don't want the County in there until they say so, but this year, which was particularly bad, residents are complaining and asking why the County wasn't working on their road.
Harney said during the Fall of 2008, there were individuals wanting to get their farm equipment down Eagle Avenue, but trees had grown up and the individuals were having problems. He said they called and wanted something done to the road. Harney said he asked Secondary Roads if their staff would go in and cut the brush, but some of the residents on the road did not want Secondary Roads staff to cut the trees. He said the responsibility falls back on the County and somehow the brush needs to be managed so people can get their farm equipment up and down the road. Hackathorn said a lot of the problem is drainage, but staff doesn't have the room to install a proper ditch and that's why the proper right-of-way is needed. Harney said in this instance it's unknown if the right-of-way is six feet or not. Planning and Zoning thinks it is, but isn't positive.
Eagle Avenue Property Owner Tim Leaven said he lives in town, but owns property just south of Schrock's place. He said he purchased the property in 1982 and around 1985 there was a 50-50 Agreement with the County. Leaven said County staff came in and scrubbed the ditches and brought them up to a grade as much as they could without the right-of-way. He said from that point on they went 50-50 with the County, until Eagle Avenue Resident Sham Russell informed him that the County didn't do 50-50 Agreements anymore. Leaven said one of the problems is when the bridge washed out the County had to come up and re-rock the whole thing all over again, which maintained the gravel part of the road for quiet a few years. He said for a long time, property owners on Eagle Avenue didn't have to put any rock on it and then the agreement went away. Leaven said at that time, the ditches were scrubbed, but after that nothing has been done. Leaven said the fact that the ditches and road were in really good shape, probably led to a lot of the confusion. He said the work stopped at Russell's place because the landowners on the west side did not want the County going out there. Leaven said it's interesting because the landowners on the west side make out well because everything washes down the hill along with all the gravel. He said the owners on the west side of Eagle Avenue are able to make it out most of the time. He noted that the worst section of the road is where Schrock lives because there isn't gravel on the road and it turns to mud when not maintained. Harney asked if the 50-50 Agreement was for Leaven's property westward or for the entire road. Leaven said it was for the area from the Level A section of the road to Russell's place. He said that was the agreement because a lady living by Schrock had a husband with cancer and she was having trouble getting to the hospital.
Russell said he lives at 3027 Eagle Avenue NW and he appreciates the Board taking the time to listen to him and his neighbors. He said he has lived at his residence for the past 30 years. He said the road is passable in some places, but impassable where Schrock and a few others live. Russell said a solution, due to the County Budget, would be to close the road. He said he owns heavy equipment and doesn't have any trouble coming in from the west. He said he has plowed the road for snow for the past four years, but in the last year he only plowed the west side. Russell said whenever the road was rocked or modified, people tended to use it as a shortcut or driven way too fast. He said there have been three car accidents in the previous 20 years in which people were hit in the corners or blind spots. Russell said making the necessary grading shifts will be very expensive to the County. He said perhaps the County could gate the road so Schrock could have his road graveled, as he owns close to 66 feet of right-of-way. Russell said he will be more than willing to help anyone needing farm access. He said building the road up to Level A road will be considerably expensive. Stutsman asked Russell who owns the land to the east of his property. Russell said Tim Leaven owns the land and because of the steep hill a lot of washing takes place. He said it's dangerous with people speeding on the road. Hackathorn said that is the area that everyone wanted to make it so they could get their farm equipment through last fall. Russell said his daughter was involved in an accident in a corner or blind spot with someone who was speeding on the road down the hill. He said a four-wheeler and a mailman were also hit in the same corner. He said there has also been a roll-over this summer.
Schrock said he wants to urge the Board to strongly consider rocking the 1,150 feet from his driveway to Moore's driveway. He said he and other residents are paying steep County taxes for services they cannot even use. He said he highly doubts he will get a break on his taxes because of the condition of the road.
Moore said he lives at 2998 Eagle Avenue and really agrees with what everybody has said. He said he doesn't want a throughway through there. He said he doesn't know if farmers need access. He suggested the County gate the road and close it off. He said he doesn't know of any farmer that has to get through and cannot go around. Moore said he is a city farmer and it only takes 10 minutes to drive a tractor a half-mile in order to stay on the gravel. He said because of this, the expense the County is prepared to spend on upgrading the road for the farmers doesn't make sense. He repeated he is a farmer, has friends who are farmers, and rents his farm ground. Moore said all of the residents bought ground on Eagle Avenue knowing it was a Level B road. He said he thinks they all want to leave it that way, they just want a little help from the County to prevent it from becoming a throughway. Moore said if the road is upgraded to Level A it will become a mess. He said everyone on Eagle Avenue bought their property wanting a private area.
R. Sullivan said the County is discussing the possibility of a Level C road and Neuzil said Level C roads are maintained like Level B roads, but have gates. R. Sullivan said that the County does not have a precedent for Level C roads. Hackathorn said the County almost had one Level C road where the resident had a dumping problem, but that has since went away. Chappell said he thought Johnson County Resident Eldon Prybil had a stretch of land not far from Iowa City where people kept driving through his fields. Chappell said a few years back the County considered changing his road to a Level C road. Parker said he recently spoke with Prybil who still wants his road changed to a Level C. He said he told Prybil to write him a letter requesting the change in grade to Level C so that he could bring it before the Board. R. Sullivan said the downside of Level C roads is that keys are needed and that the Board would basically be telling the adjoining property owners that they are getting rights that other people don't get on a County road. He asked why they wouldn't just vacate it. He asked why should some people have key access and not others if the land is public. Chappell said residents do that so they can still maintain the right-of-way, which means they will not have to buy back the right-of-way if they ever want to improve the road. R. Sullivan said the debate of Level C roads is the privatization of a public good.
Parker said there are plusses and minuses to any and everything his department does. He said he has talked to his peers about Level C roads and he said those who have changed roads to Level C have had problems doing that. He said the plus is that when a regular person comes up to the gate they know they can't go through so there turn around and leave. Parker said the negative is that anyone with a hacksaw or a pair of bull cutters can open the gate and get through. He said if they get stuck and caught it becomes and enforcement issue.
Eagle Avenue Resident Cathy Busch said she lives at 2996 Eagle Avenue on the corner. She said her family has lived and farmed in the area since 1850. Busch said the Level B road has been that way for many years and she agrees with her neighbors that they don’t want a speed zone for cars speeding down the road. She said some drivers find a thrill driving through the mud road. She said she once saw a pickup bounce while coming down the hill with its tires at least six feet off the ground. Busch said she could not believe that the pickup didn't roll, but the driver and passengers were just out for fun and a thrill. She said Eagle Avenue Resident Dee McCaw had to park in Busch's field and walk back and forth to her house for several weeks this spring because she couldn't get her four-wheel drive vehicle up and down the road. Busch said she thinks a little bit of work on the ditches would help the stretch of road immensely and the County wouldn't have to do much on a long-term basis. She said the County will have to measure 66 feet because she doesn't think there is that much right-of-way, though she could be wrong. Busch said she would really hate to see the road upgraded to a Level A because it would be a major, major expense for the County.
Neuzil said it sounds policy-wise, like the road will be either dirt or gravel, and if it's going to be gravel, it sounds like its going to meet Level A requirements. He said that the issue is whether there is something between a Level A and Level B road. He said it sounds like the residents want to leave Eagle Avenue as a Level B road with added gravel on it. Neuzil said Secondary Roads has informed the Board that they don't approve that. Neuzil asked if that was correct. Parker said the Board gave direction to Secondary Roads that a Level B road is not an approved section of roadway. He said the Board has directed Secondary Roads to blade Level B roads once or twice a year, but have also said if County equipment cannot get through because of trees and growth, Secondary Roads should grant residents permits to cut back the growth themselves. Parker said some residents do acquire permits and others that refuse to. R. Sullivan asked if currently the growth on Eagle Avenue is such that County vehicles cannot go down the road. Hackathorn confirmed. R. Sullivan said that the way things are going now, unless property owners trim the trees on Level B roads, the County is at an impasse. Hackathorn said the exception was last fall when the Board told Secondary Roads to go in and clean out the ditch as soon as the right-of-way was established on a different Level B road in the County. Hackathorn said that work has not began because of the bad winter. Neuzil asked if that project is back on the radar screen for the summer. Hackathorn said because of funding it will have to be pushed back until next winter. Neuzil said it sounds to him like residents will have to find someone else to do ditch work if they want it done before the County can get to it next winter and at least making it passable so that the County can get a blade in to fill in some of the holes.
Parker reiterated that he received a quote last fall for just under $8,000 to have the entire road surveyed to know exactly where the right-of-way exists. Stutsman asked if that was for the whole stretch. Parker confirmed. Neuzil said that way Parker could get his staff in to clean the tree lines up enough to be able to get a grader to come through. Neuzil told Parker that that was the direction he'd had from the Board and it should be done as soon as possible, which may be four or more months away. Parker said if the Board wishes to give him the direction to hire a land surveyor to determine where the right-of-way is, he can begin to get quotes. He said he imagines it will cost more now than the $8,000 estimate from last fall. Stutsman asked why the County doesn't just survey the stretch that goes east. Parker said last fall the Board wanted Secondary Roads to go in and trim the trees. He said surveying from a tree standpoint would be dealing with the rest of the section of the road not the eastern portion. Neuzil reiterated that the Board has already given Secondary Roads direction to do that, but it is a matter of cost. Harney asked if Secondary Roads could survey the roads. Parker said to do that he would have to pull staff away from and postpone other projects. He said his department is really, really busy right now. Harney said he stands by what the Board directed last fall. Harney stated that they also need to address the lower part of the road for residential access. Stutsman said that one segment is really the only one everybody seems concerned about. Hackathorn said last fall that segment didn't even come into play. Neuzil said it's the hill that is a concern. Hackathorn said they dealt with trees last year and mud this year. Hackathorn said Schrock called the Sheriff's Department earlier to get that part of the road closed. He said the bad part about it is that some of the residents like Schrock, live on a dead end.
Neuzil said the Board is expecting County staff to go in there, trim the trees up, get a blade in there, and let the residents know when that is likely to happen so they can get a permit and do it themselves if they want it done sooner. Parker said last winter was one of the worst on record and the spring has been terrible. He said typically the winter is when his staff goes and takes care of tree trimming on Level A roads, but their budget is blown out. Parker said his department has completely stopped tree trimming activities over the past seven or eight months, which means the brush on Level A roads is starting to encroach and cause concern. He said it's his recommendation that staff concentrate their efforts on the Level A sections because they do already have a need for tree trimming activities. Parker said if the Board tells him to, he will shift his emphasis to a different priority, but he doesn't see tree and brush trimming on the Level B roads happening for quite some time, maybe not even during this winter. He reiterated his department has neglected a lot of things over the past few months and it is a matter of prioritization.
Stutsman said she drove on the section of Eagle Avenue yesterday and the wash is incredible. She asked if blading the road will help anything. Hackathorn said it depends on how far the scope of blading is exaggerated. He said sometimes his staff has to rob materials from the ditch to blade and fill ruts. Hackathorn, like Schrock, said the problem is that there are no ditches down there and no drainage. Hackathorn said for his staff to go in there and solve the problem, they will need to do more than just blade. Stutsman said she thinks it is misleading to say it just needs a couple of bladings. She said she thinks it will take a whole lot more work. Parker agreed and said it will be a very involved project. R. Sullivan said this is why the Board does not consent to put houses on dirt roads. Stutsman agreed. Hackathorn said ideally his staff would take the dirt from the ditches and use it to build up the roads, but they would be working in a narrow right-of-way. He said if they do it, they should do it right. Stutsman said if his staff does it right, they are looking at a Level A road and people don't want that. Harney said Busch had told him the previous day that the County had always grated the ditch to let the water get away, but it’s been so many years since the ditch has been grated that it’s created a pocket of standing water. Stutsman said she has a problem just cleaning out Eagle Avenue and not all of the County’s Level B roads. Neuzil said the Board made the decision last fall to clean out Eagle Avenue. Harney said the Board had agreed on it. Neuzil said Stutsman is right, the Board will probably get other requests for Level B roads, but the Board needs to be realistic. He said the Board needs to let the residents know when the cleaning will be done, at least this year. Neuzil said that the Board expected this cleaning to be done this year. Stutsman said no one knew the weather was going to be what it was. Neuzil said that needs to be shared and the reason they are having this meeting is to communicate ideas.
Hackathorn said last year the only problem was the tree problem and the ditch wasn’t even in the spectrum. Parker confirmed. Neuzil said he understands. R. Sullivan said he doesn’t want Secondary Roads to neglect higher traffic and higher priority roads in order to fix Eagle Avenue. He said he still wants to see the cleaning done, but only when their professional opinion is that everything else has been done first. R. Sullivan said he thinks Neuzil is right; residents need to know what the County’s timeframe is. Neuzil said if Secondary Roads is speculating they will not get to the clearing and cleaning until next year, residents need to know there is still the option of getting the permit and trimming the brush themselves. He said then at least County vehicles can get down the road and do some makeshift blading. Neuzil said it’s not going to be the perfect scenario, but it’s passable. Parker repeated the Board decided that Secondary Roads will blade Level B roads once or twice a year and no snow or ice control activities will take place. Neuzil said that was correct. Meyers asked if Eagle Avenue was bladed this spring. Neuzil said it hasn’t been bladed in four or five years. Hackathorn said he bladed Schrock’s property once the ground was firm enough to just smooth things out and prevent the road from taking any more water. Schrock said that was at least three years ago. Hackathorn said the County staff barely got in and out, but the six-wheel graters helped tremendously.
Stutsman asked Schrock if he has ever paid for gravel on Eagle Avenue. Schrock said that the first year he was out there, he and a neighbor paid for rock. He said supposedly that was a no-no because he didn't get a permit first. Schrock said he paid for rock to be put on the road, but soon realized the traffic level was very high. He said he isn’t going to pay for everyone in Johnson County to run back and forth to bars on his road or even for farmers to come through on their equipment and tear up the road. Schrock said he doesn’t think that should be out of his pocket. He said everyone keeps talking about a tree problem, but there isn’t one. He said if the County put a gate on his driveway and a gate on Russell’s, that would get rid of the tree problem. Schrock said Leaven can still get up either way and if Leaven can’t he would be more than happy to let him borrow his four-wheeler. He said the County should rock Eagle Avenue from Moore’s driveway to his driveway to upgrade it. Schrock said he thinks the south ditch on the east-west road should be dug and scrubbed out so that the water drains down through Moore’s culvert and into the creek.
Neuzil said one possibility is to add this small section to the County’s CIP for an upgrade of the Level B road at least to the hill. He asked if the County could upgrade the one section to a Level A road. Parker said he has already spoken to a property owner on that section of road and was informed that will not and do not want to donate the necessary right-of-way. Neuzil said it’s off the list then because full cooperation is needed by all property owners. Parker said the property owner did not have any interest in upgrading the road. Schrock asked if the right-of-way is there, why property needs to be donated. Stutsman said they don’t know the right-of-way is there. She said there needs to be a survey done. Schrock stated that the residents had been told a survey was going to be done last year. Stutsman said Parker explained why the survey hasn't been completed yet.
R. Sullivan said to play devil’s advocate, if the Board agrees to Schrock’s suggestion, they are basically building him a nice driveway. Schrock said he isn’t asking for a nice driveway. He said he’s asking for two or three loads of rock for the road. He said he can take care of things from there. He said all he has to do is call Hackathorn and ask him to run a blade up there. Schrock said he has never had a problem with Hackathorn saying no. Hackathorn has told Schrock that unless it’s wet outside the County cannot run a blade, which he understands. He said Hackathorn has a perfect spot where he can go up the road, back into his driveway, and go right back down. R. Sullivan said there are a lot of Level B roads out there including Osage Road, where people do share the costs of putting rock down. He said if they watch this meeting they will call Hackathorn and ask him to do the same thing for them. Schrock asked R. Sullivan to go look at the road. R. Sullivan stated that he had been out to Eagle Avenue. Schrock said one of the Board members told him that every road in Johnson County looks like Eagle Avenue. Schrock commented that he disagrees. Harney asked Schrock if there is a residence just past his driveway. Schrock said there is one right on the corner. He said the resident is McCaw. Harney said McCaw would probably want the same surface. Hackathorn stated the houses are very close together.
Neuzil said something to consider is to add that one section to the CIP. He noted that to make that happen residents have to get the Board to put it on the list and get full cooperation amongst each other and donate the necessary property to upgrade the section of road to Level A. Parker said the County will have to create some type of turnaround at the end of the east-west section to get County equipment in and out. He said to create a hammerhead it will impact the end of the road and not just the east-west section. Neuzil said he understood. Neuzil repeated those options are possibilities that should be explored. Stutsman stated that in other parts of the County, developers have paid for hammerheads. R. Sullivan said while it is a good solution the question is whether the County taxpayers should pay for it or should the County vacate the road and let the people who live there pay for it. He said the Board could decide to vacate the road to any different point and let the residents do what the feel they need to do. Schrock said he and his neighbors would be more than happy to pay for the rock themselves, if the Board vacates the road. Hackathorn stated that the group of farmers that were in last fall to visit with the Board will not be happy if the road is vacated. Stutsman commented that she thought they were at this meeting. Hackathorn said that the farmers are not at the meeting. Schrock stated that they had all been notified of the meeting.
Neuzil said vacating has never been a popular thing, but with dirt roads the County gets agreements from all the adjoining landowners. Parker said in the past if all the property owners have agreed to it, the Board has usually vacated the roads. R. Sullivan said it sounds like everyone is here except for two people. Harney said he doesn’t think so. Stutsman said she didn't think so either and said the farmers weren’t there. She said the Board won’t know if everyone is in agreement until they start the vacation process. Hackathorn said basically the County almost vacated the road last year because it was closed. Busch said the entrance to the farm is south of her property. She said Russell is proposing that only part of the road be blocked. She said all the owners and residents are there. Meyers asked if that includes the small parcels on the corner. McCue said to be honest she doesn’t know. R. Sullivan said he thinks Moore owns it. Schrock said the woman that lives off the west end of his driveway is 65 years old and the road is so bad that she has to walk in and out to her house because she can't get to her drive.
R. Sullivan to him all of the solutions that involve using public money are not as good as the solution of vacating the road. Parker said if the residents want to proceed with the vacation process it would be helpful if he could get a letter signed by all the property owners that stated they agreed to the road vacation. He said he will then bring the letter before the Board for review and typically in his experience the Board has approved requests so long as all the property owners are in agreement. Stutsman agreed. Meyers said it becomes a matter of private money at that point. Parker said it would no longer be a County road and if the right-of-way is acquired by easement and/or fee title it would revert back to the adjoining property owners to split. He said he would think the property owners would then want to create some type of access easement, but that would be a private negotiation agreement that the County would not be involved with. Parker said it may be part of the agreement as a Board stipulation that no resident would be landlocked and all residents would have the right to use the road as a lane to their property. Chappell said that has been done before and they made sure that everyone has access. Stutsman said the County is required by law to make sure that no one ends up landlocked. Chappell said people are not supposed to be landlocked, but there is a provision so that they can request damages. Stutsman said OK. Parker said utilities companies would also be brought into this and would need some type of utilities easement for access.
R. Sullivan said he sees all the folks in the audience shaking their heads yes and asked if the Board is willing to pursue road vacation. Stutsman and Harney said they were. Meyers said if they do they will have to hold a public hearing. Parker said that is correct. He said the public hearing is an opportunity for any resident to object to the road vacation request. Neuzil said it is a tough thing because it is a road the County might still want to use someday, but the County is still probably about 100 years from catching up on all the road projects. He said he is being realistic and thinking 100 years out, maybe it is all right to abandon the road. R. Sullivan said the County has had Level B roads that were concerns because they were very close to cities, but Eagle Avenue isn’t one of them. R. Sullivan said there is general agreement to at least pursue road vacation. Parker reiterated that the request for road vacation will need to come from one person in charge of submitting the letter. He said it would be very helpful to have all adjoining property owners sign the letter. He said because of the public hearing and staff time there will be costs involved. R. Sullivan asked if a landowner doesn’t sign if Planning and Zoning notifies them by mail. Parker said his department is required by law to notify all adjoining property owners that there has been a request for road vacation. Busch asked if the Board has to initiate the process. Neuzil replied no. R. Sullivan said Parker can assist the residents with the process after the meeting. Stutsman said the Board is not going to initiate anything in regards to the road vacation. Parker said the only thing he needs is correspondence from one of the residents that wants to draft a letter that explains that they spoke to all the adjoining property owners, their signatures are included, and they want this particular section of Eagle Avenue vacated. R. Sullivan said OK. Parker said the letter doesn’t have to be fancy; it can be handwritten.
Russell said perhaps there is a landowner that does not agree to road vacation and asked if that would affect the process. Stutsman explained that it is still the Board’s prerogative to make the vacation decision but, in the past, if a resident does not agree with the request the Board does not vacate the road. Chappell said it’s his suggestion that when the residents deal with a possible objecting landowner they should indicate that they have specific plans to perform their own maintenance and to do easement agreements so that everyone who owns property will still have the legal right to access the road. Russell said he understood. Stutsman asked Chappell if the Board vacates without everyone’s agreement, if the objecting landowner has any legal recourse. Chappell said that is the damage provision; the objecting landowner can allege that they are being damaged by the road vacation. Stutsman asked if the objecting landowner can stop the vacation. Chappell said that is traditionally why the Board has asked that all residents be in favor of the road vacation when making a request. Harney said if an objecting landowner disagrees, the Board certainly can't landlock them. He said there has to be an easement or some agreement. Chappell said he’d have to know the specifics because an individual can condemn their way out.
Parker said he thinks it is a good idea to put the determining of the right-of-way on hold until the road vacation issues are worked through. He asked if for some reason the request does not go through if the Board is going to re-discuss the issue. Neuzil said he thinks the Board just wants some direction from County staff of when Planning and Zoning plans on upgrading or clearing the trees out to get a blade through. R. Sullivan said he just hopes it is a non-issue because he hopes they can vacate the road. Stutsman said she wants to know what projects will need to be put aside in order to move ahead with the road vacation process. R. Sullivan said if there is one objecting property owner it might be less expensive for the County to pay them damages or give them a place to get out then to pay the yearly maintenance on Eagle Avenue. Stutsman agreed. Parker said he can't pull one of the Secondary Roads surveyors off their current jobs to survey Eagle Avenue any time soon. He said a phenomenal amount of research will have to be done on the road by a surveyor because it has existed for such a long time and that it why the quote he received was around $8,000. R. Sullivan asked if that work has to happen if the road is vacated. Parker and Stutsman replied no. Parker asked if they were on hold for other issues with Eagle Avenue until more information is received regarding the road vacation. R. Sullivan replied that is correct.
Adjourned at 12:42 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By John Deeth, Recording Secretary