MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JULY 24, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak and East Central Iowa Council of Governments Planner Hilary Copeland: Buy Outs of flooded residences......................................................................................... 1
County Engineer Greg Parker: Resolution to Add Cottage Reserve Road/Lake MacBride Shoreline Stabilization Project # L-Cottage—73-52 to Accomplishment Year 2009 of the Five-Year Road Construction Program 9
County Engineer Greg Parker: 28E Project Agreement Between Johnson County and Johnson County Soil & Water Conservation District for Design, Construction Management and Construction Costs for the Lake MacBride Shoreline Stabilization Project along Cottage Reserve Road NE........................................................ 10
County Engineer Greg Parker: 28E Project Agreement Between Johnson County and Iowa Department of Natural Resources for Design, Construction Management and Construction Costs for the Lake MacBride Shoreline Stabilization Project Along Cottage Reserve Road NE....................................................... 11
County Engineer Greg Parker: Hills Bridge............................................................................. 12
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan.................................................. 12
Board of Supervisors: Eagle Avenue...................................................................................... 13
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:07 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said that they had met with FEMA representatives about buyouts of properties that were inundated by flooding or flood hazard areas. They have asked East Central Iowa Council of Governments Planner Hilary Copeland to facilitate that for the County, if the Board is interested in the project. Dvorak said before his committee does anything, Planning and Zoning needs to find out from the Board if it is something they would consider working on. He said there isn't a lot of information at the current time as far as how many buyouts, which he anticipates would be five to 10 at the most. Dvorak said there is a rather lengthy process that FEMA would have to do for Planning and Zoning.
Copeland said she would give a brief overview of what they would need to do to begin the process. She said the first step is to submit a Notice of Interest for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which is how the buyouts are currently funded. Copeland said buyouts are issued after each Federal Disaster Declaration. She said the plan is for the buyout as in demo or relocation of substantially damaged properties that are within the floodplain. Copeland said it is funded by the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The plan does have the local Hazard Mitigation Plan requirement, which they are updating at the moment, so they don't anticipate any problems with the plan. She said in the event the plan does get done sooner than that, there is a planning waiver they can prepare. At the current point they would proceed as though they do have the planning requirement fulfilled. Copeland said the funding for the project is 75% Federal, 10% State, and 15% local. She said the local funding can come from a number of sources, it doesn’t have to be provided entirely by the government.
Copeland said it could come from the County, from the homeowners, the organization accepts donations, and to some extent Homeland Security will count some portion of flood insurance toward the local match, and services provided. She explained this is due to the fact there will be quite a bit of legal work and administrative work. Copeland said there is some portion of this which can be counted as an in-kind match. She said there are a number of ways to make up the 15%. Copeland said the costs involved in the project are largely the property acquisition and the demo of the properties or relocation. Property is acquired at 110% of the assessed value and demo typically runs $8,000 and can go to $40,000, depending on what kind of contamination they see. Copeland said especially when dealing with older homes, asbestos is always an issue, so the actual cost of the project is currently unknown. She said they would take a look at the properties to determine a better estimate. Copeland said title and legal fees might be $1,000-$2,000. She said part of that might be contributed through an in-kind match from the County. Copeland said general administration costs are up to 5%, and that can be spread through a number of departments depending on who does the work.
Copeland said the process will be to identify property owners and send out packets of information to them explaining that it is better to get their name on the Notice of Interest and then they can withdraw afterward. She said those people are not committing to anything at this point. FEMA just needs to know for how much funding will be made available and how many people are interested. Copeland said it is always easier to remove people than to add people, so if people are remotely interested they should sign up now. She said they would be informing the public of the application process and the timeline, which can be quite lengthy taking a year or more. Copeland said if anyone has any concerns about their insurance, they need to go ahead and file. She said there will be a deduction from the compensation through the buyout process. Copeland said the point is, if anyone does have insurance, the attempt is to spread the cost. She said they do prefer to file for that. Copeland said regarding relocation, the County can determine from what kind of property found in the floodplain. Copeland said that if the properties are generally well below the median value for the rest of the properties in the County and moving outside of the floodplain will be of substantial cost to people living in that area, they can add an additional $10,000 to the amount of money available. She said if the properties located in the flood plain are generally nicer houses, it isn't necessary, so it is really a situation by situation basis.
Copeland said those property owners will have to keep in contact and remain out of the floodplain for three years. She said that after this happens, the property will be perpetual open space. Copeland said that there will be no berms, no dikes, no floodwalls, or anything else. She said again ECICOG will have to coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers to make sure they don't have any planned projects and to make sure the Army Corp of Engineers knows if there is anything planned.
R. Sullivan asked if residents have to stay out of the flood plain. Copeland said after individuals relocate, they must relocate to somewhere outside of the floodplain and they have to maintain contact with the East Central Iowa Council of Governments for three years to make sure residents don't choose to relocate anywhere near the floodplain. Meyers asked if there is a particular spot or anywhere in the floodplain. Copeland responded anywhere in the flood plain. Stutsman asked who owns the land being bought out, if it was the County. Copeland responded the County would buy it. Stutsman asked if the land would ever be built on again. Copeland said there could be recreational facilities, such as soccer fields or public restrooms, but other than that, there could not even be any flood control measures, as there are no structures. She said, in theory, the buy-out and the demo are the flood control measures so they don't want any additional structures. Copeland said with the money spent on the area, after it happens, they can't have any future disaster payoffs. Copeland said there are a few differences if you are a non-citizen. She said they have some concerns to that and typically they will not get a pre-event for the market value, the homeowners would get the current market value of the property. Copeland said that in the event that the property falls into foreclosure and is then owned by a bank, the homeowner would get the current market value of the property and it won't be sold for the pre-event market value. Stutsman asked Copeland to clear up what she said about the 110% assessed value. Copeland said under normal circumstances value is assessed that way, but if they are not a citizen, depending on their residency status, there are some cases where the homeowner won't get that.
R. Sullivan asked Copeland to clear up how FEMA said market value because that differs from state to state in terms of the way assessments are done, but for the purpose of Iowa, it is 110% of assessed, not actually marketed in. Dvorak said if Secondary Roads had a recent pre-flood appraisal within the past year, then they can accept that, but the people he works with have not had any appraisals. R. Sullivan said it was quite confusing because after FEMA tried to explain that property is assessed very differently in different states, it made more sense. Copeland explained the percentage is set up by Homeland Security for the State.
Neuzil asked where the areas are. Parker explained there were a couple scattered areas by Sutliff, but the primary area is the Izaak Walton area, where they did a buy-out in 1993, 1994, and 1995. He explained there is quite a bit of land and some individual lots at the same time. Dvorak said that is where the most interest is at the current time. He said there are one or two people up by Sutliff, and there may be one south of Sand Road although not for certain, but primarily the Izaak Walton areas. Neuzil asked if there are certain areas the Board can require buyouts if they have certain amounts of damage. Dvorak said they have an ordinance in place and all the Board can do is require elevation. He said they could be given 51% of the assessed value, which has been like that since the 90s. Neuzil said if they had more than 51% damage to their home from what their assessment is, then home owners would be required to elevate their homes and he wanted to know how the elevation would be determined so the County wouldn't have to buy homeowners out.
Dvorak said home owners have been doing a lot, surprisingly. He said the requirement is the surveyor comes in, establishes grade, establishes floodplain, and makes sure it is one foot above the floodplain. Dvorak explained that as long as the structure leaves a reasonable footprint, then what is there is very simple to get elevated. Parker said all the interior things like wiring, furnaces, air conditioning, should be above the floodplain so during a normal flood it shouldn't be damaged again. He added this was not a normal flood. Dvorak added they are doing quite a lot of assessing. Stutsman mentioned to Dvorak how on Izaak Walton there were lease/own situations and asked how it would work. Dvorak said unfortunately or fortunately they can't buy the land and not the buildings, they have to buy everything. Parker said they have been in contact with the majority owner of that property on the north side of Izaak Walton. R. Sullivan asked if the cases Stutsman was talking about means people aren't actually purchasing the homes. Parker explained individuals are leasing the homes for 99 years, but they don't own the land underneath it. Stutsman and Meyers said people own the home but they don't own the land.
Neuzil said one of the things he would be interested in knowing is the County's buyouts from 1993, 1994, and 1995. He said Harney and himself had just gotten on the Board when they were finishing the last buyouts. Neuzil asked what the process has been in the past regarding the County's 15% participation. He wanted to know how that worked out and where the funding came from. Dvorak responded he didn't remember. Neuzil said he seemed to remember the actual emergency budget was used and that the Board was able to budget it into the General Fund. Neuzil said that is where the Board came up with some of its ideas. Copeland said other buyouts ECICOG has administered have gotten homeowners to contribute 5%, so 1/3 of the local government share or local community share. She said another consideration is the demo costs are typically going to be looking at structures that are substantially damaged, so more than half. Copeland said in those situations individuals can file for public assistance to demolish those properties. She explained that would mean at least $8,000 to $40,000 off the total cost. Copeland said for the demo cost, they would only be paying 15% of the total cost. She said that would still help bring the entire total down. Copeland said if the residents had their own legal assistance, they can count that towards the in-kind match and they would have to see once they get the properties lined up how many people had flood insurance, and how residents basically get credit for participation.
Neuzil asked if it is only if residents apply and get accepted for the funding. He asked what the homeowners' choices would be if residents are not able to get 75% from the Federal government, and there is a home that is more than 51% damaged. Dvorak said they would have to elevate or remove the home at their cost.
R. Sullivan asked, referring to Loren Southwick's property, if ECICOG has to get both Southwick's agreement of both him and whoever is in the lease agreement. Copeland replied she hasn't seen the current situation before, but that it is very similar to if someone had a mobile home park, where the structure is owned by someone and the land is owned by someone else. She said it is basically a two-part agreement where the individuals have twice the amount of work and both people have to agree to it, but that it can be done. R. Sullivan said, in an ideal world, if there is a neighborhood that is problematic, ECICOG could get the whole thing done since it is almost worse to take 10 of 15 homes out of the area and still have to go service five of them. Parker said he and Southwick have been talking after the meeting and he does own some of the homes on the property. He said what engineers did last time was a subdivision, reducing the fees and acquiring approximately 30 acres and approximately five houses as a lot. Dvorak said he retained ownership of a few of the lots. He said the large lot was the leased land. Dvorak said, in theory, if they move forward, Southwick owns the structures and they would work with that. He said he has also been working with County Treasurer Tom Kris who will be working with Assistant County Attorney Scott Finlayson, and they found some properties that haven't paid taxes in 20 or more years. Dvorak said the timing is very good, but that they can't even do a buyout because they can't find all the property owners. He said there are some issues they are trying to resolve, and Kris and Finlayson are working closely on that, which is a good thing.
Neuzil said during the Flood of 1993 the County responsibility only stuck with the issues with rural Johnson County. He said the Board avoided working with residents within the cities. Neuzil said they have all heard how Iowa City was saying in the newspaper that they wanted to have the County help with assistance. He said with the 1993 flood, the precedent set was the County would handle the rural and the City handle its own. Stutsman asked why the Board would handle the cities. Neuzil said it would be using General Fund money to pay for rural areas. Stutsman said perhaps they would be using Rural Fund money, as the current situation would constitute as Rural Fund. Neuzil said the Board would have to sort the funds out.
R. Sullivan said he assumed there would be a window in which to express their interest. Copeland said September 12, 2008 is when they have to submit the notice of interest, so a week before then is when it would have to be sorted out. She said if there are any situations where ECICOG is looking to buyout an entire neighborhood, even if some of the properties wouldn't be in the 100 year floodplain, there will still be a project description to argue the case why an individual would think it to be beneficial to take out an entire neighborhood. Copeland said this could occur even without properties in the 100 year floodplain. She said individuals can still buy out things within the 500 year floodplain but they have to do a cost benefit analysis on the entire project, and those properties within the 500 year floodplain are typically not considered cost beneficial to buy out.
R. Sullivan said sometimes he can see where they can make a case, taking a road from a Level A to a Level B. He said if a utility company could pull poles out, they could make it very cost effective. Dvorak said they have a pot of money set aside, and it is his understanding that they are prioritizing how they will spend it for buyout. He said it was his understanding that the highest priority is the floodway. Dvorak said it goes to second priority as floodplain, and then 500 year flood, outside the flood, and then elevated structure. Dvorak said 99% of the structures have been damaged severely, and people are interested in the floodway. He said it would facilitate better for them on getting the grant applications.
R. Sullivan said according to the State of Iowa that is going to be the first priority so there is a really good chance it would be done. Dvorak said they can document all that. R. Sullivan said in terms of process, Dvorak was going to try and contact all the property owners by mail because the Board assumes that the property owners are getting the mail forwarded to some place. Dvorak said correct, his plan is that he and Copeland will send out letters to the people owning damaged structures regardless of whether they plan a buyout or not. He said they plan on sharing information with those individuals. Dvorak said they plan on setting up a meeting with those people and at the meeting he and Copeland will answer questions. He said another staff person may attend and present that and answer questions for them. Dvorak said his two liaisons will be there as well. Dvorak said after he and Copeland make a presentation during the meeting they will ask the property owners to go ahead and file their applications. He said after that the Board will have a better concept of what it will actually cost, and asked if it is the Board's recommendation to continue to go forward on buyouts. Stutsman said definitely.
Meyers asked if there is any discretion on the County's part. He said R. Sullivan was talking about partially clearing a neighborhood with the pros and cons of such. Meyers asked about a situation with ten homes but only one of them wanted a buyout. Meyers asked if there was any discretion on the County's part to go with that one home. He said he doesn't know what they would accomplish if they moved one house but left several sitting there. Copeland said the Board chooses who participates in the buyout, and what the criteria is. She said if the Board does want to set some goals (e.g. getting people to voluntarily participate in the buyout of the floodway) they can look at the 100 year floodplain but must also consider neighborhood character and servicing those areas. Copeland said even though this really is a recovery measure for a lot of the homeowners, this is funded as mitigation. Copeland said in terms of what the Board is trying to accomplish, removing structures from the floodway prevents damage not just to that structure but also to all the other structures by not having obstruction. Copeland said if the Board is really not decreasing the amount of obstruction in that area it might not be as beneficial to proceed with the project, so the Board does have some discretion. Dvorak said in 1993 the County did buy individual lots and did clean them up. He said they are in areas that are very much a concern not only for their structure but for the other structures in the area. Dvorak said if the County does not buy them out, the people will dismiss it and the structures will just sit there. He said then the County will either have to get the property another way or clean it up. Dvorak said people are done with it; they want out.
R. Sullivan said he knew there were several properties that were purchased after the 1993 flood but he did not realize it totaled 30 acres. R. Sullivan asked what the County is doing with it right now. He asked if anyone is making sure nobody is squatting on the land. Southwick said he did previously own the 30 acres and there is a private road that can only be accessed across ground he still owns. He said that is how the property is regulated; he doesn't allow public use of his road. Southwick said that is the only way to access the property. Stutsman asked Southwick if he kept the road. Southwick said yes. Dvorak said they didn't have a staff or Conservation Commission back then to keep the place up; he thinks they did some preliminary work and the property probably just sat. Southwick said it's just sitting there. Stutsman said it's probably reverting back to a wetland. R. Sullivan said when the County owns property it has liability for the property; he is wondering whether the Board should keep an eye on it in any way, shape, or form, but it sounds like the access is somewhat limited.
Stutsman asked when the point of no return is. Copeland said it's at the very end; it's like selling your property and up until you sign away the property you can back out. Copeland said there is a lot of flexibility. Meyers asked if the property would be on the tax sale in previous years. Dvorak said it wasn't something anyone was interested in. Meyers asked if the property owner owed the County property taxes; would it have showed up on a tax sale and nobody would have bought it. Copeland said right. Dvorak said they wouldn't want to build on it. Meyers asked if there was something like that involved in a buy-out, would the past due property taxes be considered part of the County's portion. Dvorak said the proposal just started the current week, and he's not saying Secondary Roads is even offering to buy those properties. He said they are waiting on a recommendation from the County Attorney's Office; Secondary Roads may just go after them as taxpayers for taxes.
Meyers asked if there are structures on the properties. Dvorak said there is one house that has been sitting there. He said Max Yocum’s daughter tried to sell it after 1983. The house has been out there for quite a while but the area is going to be cleaned up quite a bit. Dvorak said a lot of stuff is going to be moved out and the neighbors would like to see the property cleaned up. He said it is a row of five blocks with abandoned structures including a house, and if they can get that cleaned up it would be consistent with some of the people that want to see the County buy their property, which is kind of like a neighborhood buy-out. Dvorak said last time the County removed a house the neighbors took care of the property and even mowed the lawn.
Meyers asked if the delinquent property taxes would be considered part of the County's expenses. Copeland said she is not certain. She said there are some properties with no structures on them. Dvorak said one structure, a barn, is abandoned. Copeland said the structures are not residential and individuals probably can't qualify; for the most part they like to see some sort of damage in excess of $5,000. She said that is not normally an issue but if you do have abandoned buildings of almost no value, the damage to the property might not be substantial enough to qualify. Dvorak said that is why they are entertaining buy-outs, but not to buy the properties. Stutsman said that would be kind of ironic if people owed back taxes and then got money for their properties.
Harney said by reading the guidelines sent out, one thing that wasn't clarified was if there was an area up for buyout that could be used for a soccer field, could it be used instead for a parking lot. He said all the guidelines said were that it could not impede the flow of the water. Copeland said she thinks it would depend on what type of surface material is put down; for example you can't have anything like curb and gutter, but if you wanted to have something not paved like the Coralville Pavilion by North Ridge Park that might be OK. She said they don't want to see a bunch of infrastructure going on. R. Sullivan said it is his understanding that some fairly large gravel parking lots have been permitted. Harney said the way he read it, it almost appeared that you could use concrete because the guidelines didn't say you could not. Copeland said she thinks it would be OK as long as they don't put down any type of drainage system. Stutsman asked why the Board would want to put in a parking lot and encourage people to go down there. Harney said if there is going to be a soccer field in an area like that you need parking. .
Harney said the Board has talked a lot about the ordinances they have to follow. He asked Copeland at what point the Board should say that they won’t pay back damages for properties located in floodways. He said it has been two years since the County purchased properties, paid for damages, and hauling materials out. Harney asked if the taxpayers should have to pay for the cost of moving materials. Dvorak said that is the Board's decision. Harney said that is an ordinance that would come through the Planning and Zoning Office. R. Sullivan said the Board is choosing to do that. He said they don't have an ordinance that says they will. Harney said he thinks the Board should have a point where they will either do a buyout or decide not to continue to spend taxpayer money building on floodplains. R. Sullivan said that really isn't even policy; the Board has just chosen to do it twice.
Dvorak said they can make the ordinances more stringent, but after talking with FEMA, the concept that nobody can ever replace their damaged buildings on the floodplain is quite difficult. FEMA does not recommend that. Dvorak said that would be a very long discussion in the County Attorney's Office. Harney said his concern is that the County keeps paying money out for this and doesn't have the money to do other things that need to be done. He said it seems like the County keeps rewarding people for building in a floodway. Stutsman said the County doesn't condemn property as a rule but asked if condemnation could come into play here. Copeland said no. She said in the event that the County does have a buyout of a substantial area and someone chooses not to participate, if after several years down the road when grant process program has closed out, if there is an obvious health and safety welfare issue with a non-maintained structure, the County can go back and try to condemn it. Copeland said it would not be appropriate to discuss that before then because FEMA does not like that to be used, because theirs is a voluntary program. Copeland said if someone does not choose to participate in this program, once the local hazard mitigation plan is in place and updated, there is a yearly program called Pre-Disaster Mitigation which can also fund buyouts. She said if someone sees most of their neighborhood get bought out and decides they don't like being in a flood-prone area, they can come back and try to clear some of that up several years down the line.
Stutsman asked who is going to handle the buyouts administratively. Copeland said that she would. Stutsman said she knows last time it seemed like the buyouts went on a long time and a lot of time was spent working with homeowners. Dvorak said at the first FEMA meeting in Shueyville, he asked East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) Executive Director Doug Elliott if he could help Secondary Roads through a very difficult and time-consuming problem. Elliott said that they would facilitate the whole project.
R. Sullivan said he doesn't think it is necessarily applicable for the Izaak Walton area but possibly for the Sand Road area. He said those areas are very agricultural and asked if the County was to purchase that land if it could be rented for hay or grazing. Copeland said she wasn't aware that the County could rent for the purpose of making any kind of money off of it. R. Sullivan said he knows they can't get Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) money. Copeland said that is something she would have to check out further; she doesn't know if erosion is a concern for them and other issues with row cropping. R. Sullivan asked Copeland if she could find that out. Copeland said yes. Copeland said typically they say no development or transfer of ownership, but in the event that it was just grazing she is not sure. She said she would check and let the Board know.
County Engineer Greg Parker said all three items on the agenda are interrelated to each other for the specific project. He said he thinks the Board is well aware of the actual location; several Board members have been out there and met with the residents around Lake MacBride that live beyond the Cottage Reserve Road project. Parker said Secondary Roads has finally received grant money which is something they had been trying to find; Soil and Water Conservation Board member Amy Bouska was instrumental in putting the grant together by assisting the department. He said he compliments her efforts, and his staff also assisted in putting together a cost estimate and all the other needed documentation.
Parker said Secondary Roads was successful in receiving a $62,100 Soil Conservation Grant towards the project. The Engineer's estimate for the project is $106,000. He said the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is going to give $10,000 towards the project to assist for the cost. Secondary Roads will pick up the difference of just under $34,000. Parker said he is very happy about the grant monies but because Secondary Roads did not know the funding source for the project and therefore kept it out of the Five-Year Road Construction Program until they did receive the funding. Parker said Secondary Roads is looking at having construction begin this upcoming fall. The recommendation from Secondary Roads is to add the project to the Five-Year Road Construction Program by resolution. He said it is a standard Department of Transportation (DOT) resolution. Once the Board makes the formal recommendation to approve that, Secondary Roads would then sign the resolution and forward it to the DOT for inclusion into the Five-Year Road Construction Program.
Parker said there are three governmental entities involved in the 28E Project agreement, the Secondary Roads Department, the Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the DNR. He said to receive the funds and make sure everything will work well, Secondary Roads has proceeded with a 28E Agreement as required by the Iowa Administrative Code. Parker said the Attorney's Office has reviewed the next two agreements and was OK with the language, and the 28E agreement was signed last month by the Soil and Water Conservation District. He said unfortunately the Iowa Department of Natural Resources isn't going to meet until August, but he did receive a letter from the DNR stating they are in agreement with the language. Parker said that's why that agreement would not come to the Board of Supervisors until he actually has a signed agreement from the DNR. He said effectively the agreement clearly defines what the expectations are for both parties. Upon completion of the project and once the bills are submitted to the Soil and Water Conservation District, they would request that the grant money be refunded or reimbursed to Secondary Roads to assist with the costs of the total construction project. Parker repeated that the Soil and Water Conservation District is in agreement with that but in the DNR agreement Secondary Roads wanted to make clear that the DNR would give them $10,000 towards the construction, which would be reimbursed once the project is completed. He said there were a couple of other important items in the agreement, one of them being that Secondary Roads has to lower the lake water down so they can do the construction. Parker said the DNR will have the water lowered and they will not delay the project. He said if the DNR doesn't do so, then the County will not be responsible and there is no cost.
Stutsman asked who is going to maintain the road afterwards. She said that the agreement states that the County shall not have any responsibilities for future maintenance or repairs on the shoreline. Parker said Secondary Roads clearly wants to define that once the project is completed the DNR is going to be responsible for any embankment stabilization. He said that way if they get into an issue where it's eroding up along the roadway, the DNR will be fully financial responsible for making sure it does not impact the road. Parker said if it does the DNR will be paying for any repairs or damages to the roads. Parker said that agreement hasn’t been approved by the DNR yet but he did receive an unofficial letter from them stating they are in agreement, though it won't be reviewed until their Board meets in August.
Harney asked if there were any other stipulations attached in the grant that regulate anything for the future. Parker said he wasn't aware of any. He said reviewed the grant but effectively the total construction cost of the project has to exceed $62,100. If the project exceeds that, which he is sure it will, Secondary Roads would be reimbursed for the dollar amount. He said from a Soil Conservation standpoint, it is spelled out in their 28E agreement. He said the DNR contract is a little bit more specific because Secondary Roads wants to make sure residents understand that once the project has been completed, it is theirs. Parker said the roadway will still be the County's and they will still maintain it, but if the embankment starts to encroach the road for whatever reason, the DNR is then responsible for repairing and maintaining it.
R. Sullivan said, obviously, there is shoreline work here and asked what the County is actually doing to the road or shoulder. Parker said the County is going to design it, let the project, and manage the construction through completion. He said the County will also pay the whole project up front and, once it is completed, they expect reimbursement from the DNR and Soil and Water Conservation. R. Sullivan asked if alterations will be made to the existing road. Parker replied they will not be upgrading, widening, or resurfacing the road. He said that they will be replacing the guardrail because it is in poor shape. R. Sullivan said he was asked by a couple of folks whether the road will be raised, in light of recent events. Parker said that is a bigger project.
Meyers asked if it will be strictly shoreline. Parker said as part of the project Secondary Roads will have to build the embankment out so many feet behind the new guardrail that will be installed. He said the current guardrail is in poor shape; it is rusted, bent, and not at the required height. Harney asked if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the money in the budget to put their share in. Parker said Secondary Roads has the money to cover the differential, and as a matter of fact they are looking at applying for funds through the net and they are applying for funding to cover the differential that the County is paying for. He said Secondary Roads met with District Conservationist Wendell Jones who said that this project would be a good candidate for funds.
Meyers asked if the project would do anything to eliminate the problem of the road going underwater. Parker replied no, there will be no elevation or grade changes to the existing roadway. Stutsman asked if there is a reason why one engineer's estimate is $106,000 and the agreement states $107,000. Parker said maybe he missed it and put the wrong number down but the resolution is for $106,000. Stutsman said the agreement talks about $107,000. Parker said it is a cost estimate and the project may be plus or minus some dollar amount. He added they are talking $1,000 difference. He said Secondary Roads may exceed the $106,000 by the bids they receive or they may be under $106,000; it's an estimate and not a final construction cost. Parker said he wasn't aware of that and he is glad Stutsman brought that to his attention.
R. Sullivan said it is exciting that the County got the grant and it's really, really helpful. Parker said it was fantastic; Secondary Roads worked very hard to get the project into the system. He said if the Board sees Bouska they should compliment her efforts because she really was a major player in putting the project together and getting the funds. Meyers said this project has been out there for a long time. He said that he remembers sitting out in Board meetings as an audience member during previous discussions, and that it is too bad they drained the lake before but didn’t work on the shoreline. The Board agreed to put the agreements on a future formal agenda for approval.
Parker said the Hills Bridge is still closed and Secondary Roads has determined the repair activities for the structure. He said it involves utilizing divers to complete repairs; there is a huge scour of area underneath the west abutment. Parker said they estimated that 140 cubic yards of materials are going to have to go underneath that abutment to support it, so the bridge is still not going to be open. He said he knows there have been lots of comments flying around about the diver making a comment. Parker said the diver would not dive underneath the abutment because he felt it was unsafe. He said, basically, the abutment is exposed, sitting on piles with no support under it. Parker said until Secondary Roads can get that repaired, the bridge will remain closed, but they are looking at cost estimates. He said he knows the bridge needs to be opened as quickly as possible. Parker said he wants to thank everyone for their patience. He said Secondary Roads just wants to make sure it is done right so that it is safe for the traveling public.
Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan said there will be a meeting with FEMA coordinators on July 24, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. to try to tie up the Category A and B items discussed last week at their Key Issues meeting. He said the small work group that was discussed at the last Key Issues meeting about formulating a contingency plan for catastrophic disasters will meet July 28, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. He said he wants the Board to know the group is starting their first meeting and that he wanted to hand out some assignments to some of the team members. M. Sullivan also wanted to set up a regular meeting schedule in addition to sending regular reports to the Board about their progress. R. Sullivan asked if the work group is going to be reporting to the Iowa State Association of Counties (ISAC) Public Safety Committee. M. Sullivan said actually two people, including himself, from the Safety Committee are in the small work group.
R. Sullivan asked Parker to speak about the status of Eagle Avenue. Parker said Eagle Avenue is designated as a Level B roadway. He said Level B roadways require minimum maintenance. Secondary Roads has been directed by the Board to blade the roadways in the spring and fall for harvesting activities and only by request as needed. Parker said some of the problems that Secondary Roads has been finding with the Level B roads recently are the growth of the trees and other greenery that would not allow his staff to get in there with equipment to blade it. County vehicles were having their lights ripped off and mirrors bent and cracked by the greenery. Parker said Secondary Roads has also been instructed by the Board based on past discussions to let the residents trim the trees back, if they wished, to allow his staff to get their equipment into the Level B road. Residents have to fill out a permit and once they trim the trees back Secondary Roads staff goes in.
Parker said there have been a couple issues with Eagle Avenue west of Kent Park and south of Highway 6. Eagle Avenue has special issues because homes have been allowed to be built on the Level B roadway based on an old grandfathering activity before the new Planning and Zoning ordinance took place. Parker said with the current guidelines and standards they wouldn't have been allowed to build, but because of the issue, they were allowed at that time. He said that Johnson County has had the worst winter on record and the worst spring on record, and the weather just does not seem to want to go away. He said with some of the issues, the trees have grown in and his staff has been asked to go in and blade it but there is the issue of doing damage to the equipment. Parker said last November they sent a dozer in there by request of the Board to blade one section of the roadway to allow it to be somewhat passable, but since then they haven't been able to get anything in there. He said the spring hit and the road just felt apart because it's dirt with no drainage. Parker said his staff wouldn't send their equipment in there for fear of doing more damage to the road than it had already received. He said the road does have issues and there has been discussion on whether the road should be vacated, but no agreement can seem to be reached by the residents and Secondary Roads. Parker said today Sham Russell handed him a letter that had been signed by residents that will be presented today. Parker said some residents want rock on the road and some residents want to do a rock agreement with the County. He said it is a Level B road and he does not have the authority to change what the designation of the roadway is, which is why they are reviewing it with the Board.
R. Sullivan said it's also worth noting that the right-of-way requirements go far beyond what is available. In some cases some of the property owners aren't willing to donate the necessary right-of-way to upgrade the road. Parker said based on today's design guidelines they would no longer be allowed to have 66 feet of right-of-way but rather 80 or in some locations 100 feet of right-of-way donated to get around two 90 degree curves. He said they may have to install drainage structures which would thus be an expensive and evolved process. R. Sullivan said, frankly, that isn't an option if residents won't donate the right-of-way. Stutsman said the County could condemn it. Parker said that means the County would buy the properties to allow for the upgrade of the road but it's a very long, expensive process. Neuzil said last time they met there was supposed to be a committee of residents who were to start working together to get a plan in place; maybe it would be good to hear from that committee. He thought Russell was in charge of the committee.
Russell said he lives at 3027 Eagle Avenue NW and he appreciates the Board's time for listening. He said some of the neighbors that live in the area have signed an agreement; the bottom line being that if the road is vacated, gravel can be put on it and all of the residents want gravel. Russell said he does know that the east access of the road where resident Monte Schrock lives has different soil and drainage. He said it would be nice if the County could rock that for him though he did not sign the letter. Russell said there are issues of expense and safety; he wants to take care of Bob Woods because he is a farmer, good neighbor, and kind man. He said he wants to make sure Woods can travel through there; the neighbors have talked about getting together and paying the cost of the rock. Russell said he is planning on setting a blade there on his place. He said he hasn't been allowed to dump any rock because a permit is needed and the County doesn't give permits to rock Level B roads.
R. Sullivan said there is a unique nature to the road so a couple gates are probably needed on the north end and the south end. He asked the residents if they would be able to enter an agreement with Woods on both ends because it sounds like he travels the length of the road. Russell said he could be given a key. R. Sullivan said that sounds great to him. Russell said to those who live in the area that are opposed to it, they don't live on the road. Harney said there are only four names and asked how many property owners are along the road. Russell said there is Schrock, Deatsch, Reeves, and Funk. Harney said he got an e-mail from Dylan and Katie Wade offering to trim the brush along the road but they don't want the road vacated or closed down. He said he isn't sure what interest they have in it.
Neuzil said when the Board talks about closing the road, ideally it is helpful to have agreement from everyone, particularly the landowners along the road, since the road will be reverted back to them. He said it would be fairly easy to print out a list of all the landowners so that the County could try to get buy-in from those folks. Neuzil said an agreement like that would be really helpful for the folks with access issues. He said, originally, there were a couple options. Neuzil said either the County closes the road and the landowners do whatever they want with their land, or the County clears everything out and makes it a Level A road. He said another option is to have the County try to do a little of both by extending certain portions of the road to Level A status while keeping others at Level B status. Neuzil said a policy was started, a Capital Improvements Plan, that said the Board would look at upgrading Level B roads, as long as they have 100% buy-in from residents to donate the property. He said those three options are out there but it's just a matter of working out one of those. Neuzil said if they can't come to an agreement with one of those three options, then the fourth idea is that County staff will go out and identify the right-of-ways. He said then the County could go in and clear out at least some of the brush to do minimal maintenance and get a blade down there.
Harney said he would just as soon put some rock down from the Schrock residence up to the next residence. He said the County could do a cost share on the gravel, as it does with any road that is less than 60 feet. Then the County can decide whether they want to close the rest of the road or continue to treat it as a Level B road from that point on. He said he knows there are some issues about how wide the road is, but until it is surveyed they won't know. Harney said he thinks the Board directed Secondary Roads to survey last fall but with the winter they didn't get to it. He said it needs to be determined how wide the road is and how much of it the County actually owns. Harney reiterated he would like to see at least that portion of the road cost shared with the gravel.
R. Sullivan said he has a problem with that because he thinks it is just a band-aid; the drainage isn't there. He said he doesn't have a problem temporarily getting some rock down in the north area so residents can use the road, but he only wants to do that if they have an agreement for the future because adding rock is just a band-aid. R. Sullivan said if the ditches stay as they are, the Schrocks are going to be back twice a year because they'll need gravel. R. Sullivan said all of the Board members spent a lot of time at the County Fair and he probably had 25 different people from every corner of the County telling him how much rock they need on any given road. He said it's almost a crisis; they were talking about Level A roads, so how much is the County going to invest in a road that doesn't meet all the standards. R. Sullivan repeated he isn't against putting rock down a single time to get residents through, but he only wants to do that if they have a long-term fix for the road. He said he just thinks a cost share isn't a long-term fix; it's a long-term problem.
Harney said that isn't any different from any of the roads in the County that have the same policy of being cost shared for gravel if it is less than 60 feet. He said those homes were allowed to be built on Level B roads and he thinks the County has a certain amount of responsibility to provide the service there that it does everywhere else. Harney said the reason he suggested cost sharing is because the County already does that on gravel roads so the policy isn't being changed. R. Sullivan said the County only cost shares on Level B roads where there are houses. He reiterated that is a band-aid for a problem they'd rather avoid. He said if there is a chance to get rid of the issue, letting property owners to do what they want with their property, that is how he would prefer to proceed. R. Sullivan said that would be his choice, as opposed to setting something out that will end up repeatedly coming back before the Board and Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Hackathorn.
Stutsman asked R. Sullivan if he would vacate the whole road. R. Sullivan said he thinks the perfect solution is having gates on the north end just past the houses and on the south end past the houses. He said anybody like Woods or the neighbors who needed access could get a key to the gates but otherwise they would stay shut. R. Sullivan said whatever the residents want to do in terms of rock on the north end and south end is their decision. Stutsman said she would support that too. Parker said there is an option in the Iowa Administrative Code. He said the County doesn't have any Level C roads, but effectively that's what the Board would be creating. Stutsman asked if the County has any responsibility for maintenance on a Level C road and if it is the County’s decision to go in and grade it once or twice a year. Parker said he doesn't have much experience with Level C roads. He stated he would have to do more research on the issue. Parker said, effectively, when the County changes a road to Level C status it is vacating the road; it's still a County right-of-way but is becoming a private access road. R. Sullivan said he would like to take the County interest out of it, because if a tree falls across the road he would just as soon have the neighbors have someone else get the tree out of there. Meyers agreed.
Neuzil asked R. Sullivan if he was looking at not even making the road into a Level C road but instead a private driveway where the residents would be responsible for the gates and keys. R. Sullivan said it would really be two private driveways with access between them. Neuzil said the residents can sort the driveway situation out because the Board would be going through a public process of abandoning the road and reverting it back to the residents' land. He added that, obviously, it would likely be in the middle of the road. Neuzil said there would still be some expenses because the residents would then have to determine the right-of-way so that the County knows where the lines are.
Harney said it still comes back to vacating the road; the residents are going to have to have an agreement of who has access to the properties back there because the whole area has private residences. Neuzil said there are those kinds of associations and neighborhoods all over the County. Russell agreed, stating that anyone who has any reason to be back there will by all means have access. He said he'd like to have a nice gravel lane; he's plowed the road himself for three years and pushed the snow all winter. Russell said this spring he had three washouts already and repeated he would like to have gravel down on the road. He said they don't give permits to put gravel down. Russell said he has access to recycled products like broken up concrete that he could put on the road and he would like to do so.
Harney said he wants to see this resolved but the problem is there are so many interests involved and there is not an agreement on vacating the road. Harney said the Schrocks want gravel on their end and he understands that because it's residential with two homes on the end of the road, and is already partially graveled. He said he thinks the Board has to do something to address the issue. R. Sullivan said the Board doesn't have to have 100% agreement to vacate a road. Stutsman said that sometimes the Board can't get everybody to agree on a solution. She thinks it is the Board's responsibility to weigh the options and, in the community's best interest, decide what to do and then move ahead. She agreed with R. Sullivan that it's a band-aid solution that keeps coming back before the Board. Stutsman said maybe this would be an opportunity to solve the issue once and for all so the decision will no longer be an issue for the Board and ultimately all the taxpayers. She said the County has the potential of putting a lot of money into a road that impacts very few people. Stutsman said it's very important for the people living out there on the road, but maybe it should be considered a private driveway and not a County road. She said in 2008 the County would never design a road like that.
Harney said the whole problem here is the issue is going on and on, and has never been addressed properly. He said the proper way to have it vacated would be to get the signatures, take them to the County Engineer, and ask for the road to be vacated. Harney said Parker would bring it back before the Board of Supervisors, the Board would hold a public hearing where people can object to it, and then the Board would make a decision to vacate the road or not. He said he is still interested in what the County is going to do for the Schrocks. Russell said he took the form to Parker. Parker said he just received the form this morning. Russell said those who live on the road have signed it. He said there are two residents who haven't; one is gone and the other is Schrock. Russell said Schrock is a good neighbor and he is thinking of vacating the road after Schrock's driveway. Russell said that way the road can be rocked and maintained up to Schrock’s place.
Stutsman said part of the problem with just graveling the road in front of Schrock's property are complaints. She said that people will say that the road is being used as a through road; that they are paying to put the rock on it and now everyone is driving on it. Harney said the Board hears that all over. Stutsman said the proposed request is the only way to stop it from being a through road. R. Sullivan said he thinks the Board has already gotten the request and he would like to move forward with it. Stutsman agreed. Harney said he doesn’t think the Board has the official request. R. Sullivan asked for clarification on what the letter was. R. Sullivan said the Board doesn't need an official request but they've got one anyway. Stutsman said she is ready to move ahead with the road vacation. Stutsman said the Board can hear the neighbors out and then make a final decision. Harney said he wants to hear from the Schrocks. Russell thanked the Board.
Monte Schrock said he lives at 2999 Eagle Avenue and asked if the Board knew where he lived. R. Sullivan said he knew where Schrock lives. Schrock asked if the Board had physically driven up the road to where he lives. R. Sullivan said he has driven all the way to the residence. Schrock asked R. Sullivan if he had driven past Dean Moore's driveway. R. Sullivan said he had driven up to Moore's driveway where the gravel stops. Schrock stated that R. Sullivan then had no idea of what the road actually looked like. R. Sullivan replied that Schrock had brought in photos and he had seen them. Schrock said R. Sullivan didn’t even want to look at the pictures. He said Harney had said, if residences are on the road, the County does a 50/50 deal. Schrock said he is not interested in vacating the road from the minimum maintenance sign to his driveway. He said they want to do maintenance from his driveway and on south.
Schrock asked how many more services they will lose before the Board makes a decision. R. Sullivan said he is ready to make a decision. Stutsman said she is too. Neuzil said the Board has made a decision at this point; the decision being that this coming spring the County will be assessing the right-of-way. Schrock replied it is already spring. Neuzil replied spring of 2009 is when the Board has given direction to County staff. Stutsman asked Neuzil if he meant to survey the land. Neuzil replied yes. Neuzil asked Parker if his recommendation was to not look at the right-of-way until spring of 2009, and if that had not already been discussed in a Board meeting. Parker said a couple of things have been thrown out. Harney said he doesn't remember the discussion. Stutsman said she truly doesn't remember it either. She said she remembered hearing it was going to be expensive to survey the land and she thought the Board was holding off on giving Parker direction until they explored all the other options.
Neuzil said his understanding from the Board meetings was that last fall the County staff would start evaluating the right-of-way in the spring of 2008. He said Parker came to the Board after the wet spring a few months ago, saying that the expenses could exceed $10,000. Neuzil said the Board gave Parker direction that the right-of-way evaluation, due to the wet spring and cost, would likely be delayed until the spring of 2009. He said that is what he remembered from the meeting. R. Sullivan said he remembered it like that except the Board talked about not having to do a survey if they vacated the road. Stutsman and Parker agreed. Neuzil said then the idea was what the Board could do between those times. He said Schrock's question was what has the Board done, and that is what the Board has done other than wait for a recommendation from a committee of citizens to come out and tell the Board the best thing to do.
Schrock asked if the County is going to survey between Moore's fence and Schrock’s fence that have been there for more than 10 years. Schrock asked when Parker is going to come out and say that they don’t have the right-of-way so the County is going to tear out the fences. He asked who is going to pay to put the fences back. Neuzil said the reason there was direction to survey the right-of-way was to determine which trees to cut back. Schrock replied that there aren’t any trees that need to be cut back. Neuzil said he is just explaining as far as the Level B portion of the road goes. Schrock said he measured his road that morning and the gravel portion of it is 25 feet wide. He said around the corner on the south side of the bridge, the County rocked 18 feet of it. Schrock said he thinks he has enough to at least get some rock in there so he could get home. Schrock said he heard a comment through the grapevine that he can't put rock down on the road because he would be liable. Neuzil agreed that was very true. He said he would tell any resident that, unless they have a permit to put things in the County's right-of-way, they do not have the right to do that. Schrock asked who is liable if somebody is driving down that road and wrecks a vehicle because of the condition of the road. Neuzil said it is a Level B maintenance road with signs. Schrock questioned Neuzil’s statement about minimal maintenance. Neuzil said the sign says minimal maintenance. Schrock said then he wanted the sign changed to no maintenance until something could be done. Neuzil said Level B will be as the Board determines through the Iowa Administrative Code.
R. Sullivan said he would like to pursue the road vacation but because he is not sure how long it will take, he is willing to consider helping the residents out by going 50/50 on a single load of rock if they are pursuing the road vacation. He said he doesn’t want to go through everything over and over. Schrock asked Hackathorn if he hauled rock into the power plant at the University of Iowa. Neuzil asked that questions be directed to the Chair of the Board. Schrock said he has a question directed at Hackathorn at the moment. Neuzil explained that is not how the Board works. Neuzil asked Schrock if he wants to start an argument during a meeting and time when the Board is trying to find a way to help. Schrock stated that the Board chose not to help. Neuzil disagreed. Schrock said there was four years' time to help. Schrock said this project didn't start yesterday. Harney asked Schrock if he wants to be a part of the process if the Board proceeds with a road vacation. Schrock said all of the road needs to stay open and he thinks the vacation is crazy.
Nicole Schrock said her area needs services like emergency vehicles and school buses. She said her daughter gets left at home because the school bus decides not come down there. R. Sullivan said if she owns the road she can maintain it however she'd like. N. Schrock said the Board is saying that won't happen until the area is surveyed in 2009. R. Sullivan, Stutsman, and Neuzil said no. Stutsman explained surveying would not be included in the road vacation. Schrock said nothing has happened in four years. R. Sullivan said the Board has not been definitive on this and he has been disappointed in the indecisiveness of the whole time. He said he would like to have a permanent solution.
Stutsman asked if there are three Board members interested in moving ahead with the road vacation process. Stutsman, R. Sullivan, and Meyers said they are. Stutsman said the Board is going to move ahead with the vacation process. N. Schrock asked how long the road vacation process takes. County Attorney Janet Lyness said she will have look and check up on that. She said the Board will have to have a public hearing and lots of notices go out. R. Sullivan said it also has to go in the newspaper. Parker said it has to be not less than four days but not more than 20 days. He said they are talking about a month long process. Lyness agreed. Harney asked if there has to be a survey so they know who gets what property. Parker as part of the road vacation process, the Board does have some special discussion items that will take place because he is sure there are utilities being run down there and the utilities will still have to be maintained. He said the Board would want to make an agreement to allow all residents access via a dedicated lane access. Stutsman asked if the utility companies will have to be notified of the road vacation. Parker said yes, they will also have the same opportunity to give comment at the public hearing. R. Sullivan said he doesn't have a map in front of him, but the agreement will probably include any place that the County doesn't have enough right-of-way to maintain a road. Parker said the Level B road vacation would be from where the existing Level B starts to a Level A on both ends.
N. Schrock said somebody said that if the road became a Level B then the people would have to maintain the tube. R. Sullivan said the road is already at Level B status. N. Schrock said not where the tube is. Parker said if the tube is within the Level A portion of the roadway that would still be the County's responsibility. He said if there are any cross pipes on the Level B sections they would become the responsibility of the property owners as would be stated in the agreement, like a driveway. Parker said there used to be a wooden bridge there that was removed and his staff put the big pipe in; that was when the right-of-way was bought for the new bridge. Hackathorn said it's right on the corner. Parker said the County would have an interest in maintaining a short section of that as Level A because they have to have some type of a hammerhead to turn the equipment around. He said that is why they rock that section; so the equipment can get turned around.
Bob Woods said he lives on 1626 310th Street and owns property on Eagle Avenue. He said he knows what Russell is going through and respects that, but he doesn't agree with the gates whatsoever. Woods said there are 11 property owners and five homes along Eagle Avenue. He has spoken to eight property owners who do not want the road shut down. He said they don't want gates in there and this has been an ongoing thing. Woods said he personally does not want to have to stop and open two sets of gates to go through the road. He said he works in town but has strange hours sometimes, even during the night. Woods said he doesn't have to use the road but he does when it's dry. He said he has 64 names of people who would like to keep the road open to present to the Board. Woods said he hasn't pushed this too hard but the names are of people who are aware of the circumstances and many of them travel through there.
Woods said as far as he is concerned, the Schrocks need immediate help on their end of the road; they have been driving through mud and need to get in and out. Woods said Russell discussed the different soil types from one end of the road to the other; there is a pretty high-dollar bridge over Clear Creek that the County put in several years ago. He said he appreciates that but he would hate to see it shut down so four residents can use it, which is what would happen if gates are put on the road. Woods said he has talked to all the neighbors about the willingness to cut the trees; and they are ready to go if they can get Secondary Roads to come in and blade the roads at least from Russell's drive to east of Schrock's drive where there is no maintenance. He said those are just temporary fixes though, but he did talk to the Oxford and Tiffin Fire Departments. Woods said Tiffin Fire Chief Randy Morgan signed the petition and is absolutely against not being able to use the road. Woods said he is here to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Woods said he thinks everyone else is too, but there are a lot of emotions; everybody kind of wants the same thing but there are just different angles.
Woods said he doesn't want a Level A road through the area and he doesn't think anybody else does either. Woods said, however, he does want to be able to get through there. Woods said he knows the road is going to be abused at times from people who shouldn't be on it but that happens everywhere in the County. He said that is all he has, and mentioned there are 11 property owners that he knew on that road. R. Sullivan thanked him. Woods asked if the County will blade the road if the residents get a permit to cut the brush. R. Sullivan said the County does a minimum amount of grading on a road that staff can get through. He said if they can get to a Level B road, they blade it once or twice a year. Parker said it is a request-based activity; and typically Secondary Roads gets a phone call. He said then Secondary Roads has to prioritize it because Level A roads are their top priority and Level B roads are fit into the schedule when possible. Parker said Hackathorn does a great job of handling those scheduled activities. Woods said the brush right now is the issue. R. Sullivan said actually that is a secondary issue; the first part is the drainage of the road because that is a bigger fix and a bigger problem.
Stutsman said there are so many extenuating circumstances with Schrock wanting gravel. She said complying would be pouring gravel into a bottomless pit. She said she bets one load wouldn't even touch it, so then the issue becomes how much money is the County going to put into the road in order for it to be acceptable to the neighbors. Stutsman said there are so many other needs in the County including an unanticipated expensive bridge project resulting from the flooding. She said that after awhile the Board just has to be practical about some of these things. Meyers said it's a Level B road, but the continuous requests and continuous needs put the maintenance level well beyond that of a Level B road.
R. Sullivan said part of the irony is that one of the people whose names appears on the petition cornered him at the County Fair to complain about a road outside of Oxford that is Level A and does not have enough gravel. Stutsman said she feels if the road is not going to be vacated then the County should get the road fixed and surveyed so that it's passable. R. Sullivan said there really are only two options. Neuzil disagreed and said the other option is to let it continue to be a Level B road with minimal maintenance. Meyers said that is part of the problem. Neuzil said no, part of the problem is that Secondary Roads isn’t able to go down the road because of the overgrown trees. He said there are Level B roads all across the County but the reason this one is an exception is because maintenance vehicles can't be sent down it. R. Sullivan said people live on it as well. Stutsman said the trees are just a part of the issue; she has driven on the road and with the washing and erosion she can't imagine an ambulance going down the road. N. Schrock said that is the portion south of her house; there is nothing overgrown there and they have even removed pine trees three rows back. R. Sullivan said the ditches there are a problem. Stutsman said the drainage is the biggest problem. N. Schrock agreed that was a problem. Neuzil said the biggest part of the problem is that portion is Level B and for the County to put the gravel down and do the sort of things that need to be done, it needs to be upgraded to Level A.
Neuzil said there may be a possibility of upgrading that portion to Level A, but that entails being a part of the Capital Improvements Plan and getting all the landowners to agree to donate property for the County to upgrade it to a Level A. Harney said he disagrees with that; some want the road vacated and some want to keep the road as a Level B. He said all the residents are asking is that the County come in and grade the road like they do for other Level B roads. Harney said the other part of it is the Schrocks want some rock and he doesn't see that as a big issue. He said when the Schrocks grade the ditches out so the water gets away, then they can go ahead and cost share the road. Harney said it's not that big a deal to grade it, which is what they did with Deer Creek. N. Schrock said she and her family live there so something has to be resolved so they can get service. She said if an accident happens and everyone goes to court, and they tell a jury of 12 that they have been complaining for four years, that could create a problem.
R. Sullivan said, frankly, that is all the more reason that he wants the County to give it to the Schrocks to maintain it the way they see fit. He said he is talking about vacating the whole road. N. Schrock replied that would be fine but her family needs a solution today so they can get in and out. R. Sullivan said, as Lyness said, the fastest they could do a road vacation is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-45 days give or take a few days. N. Schrock said the fastest is for the County to cost share and put the gravel on the road, and they will pay for the other 50%. R. Sullivan said that is the easiest solution, but not the best long-term solution in his mind. N. Schrock said it won't happen until everybody gets their ducks in a row. R. Sullivan replied he is convinced that the ducks aren't going to get in a row and the Board is going to have to decide something. He said he really feels like there needs to be a permanent solution.
N. Schrock asked if the County trucks delivered gravel to the power plant at the University of Iowa. Hackathorn said not that he is aware of. He said the trucks hauled sand down there; but when the question came up about hauling rock, someone else handled it during the flood. Stutsman said, quite frankly, those are two different issues and gravel to the power plant was a flood-related recovery disaster effort. N. Schrock agreed but then pointed out that that is free gravel that the County took out to the power plant at the University of Iowa that they could have put on a Level B road. Hackathorn said they did bring rock out to the maintenance facility; they didn't haul anything in there, but that they did spread rock out with sand bags and debris. N. Schrock said then they could have gotten a few of those loads on their minimum maintenance road. R. Sullivan pointed out so could the folks who live on Level A roads in Solon, Lone Tree, North Liberty, Tiffin, Swisher, Hills, and Sharon Center Road. He said everybody in Johnson County has road issues; and everybody who lives on a gravel road is disappointed with the way the weather has played havoc with the roads. N. Schrock said the Level A portion of the road is great because it has been graveled twice in two months. R. Sullivan said that is good to hear; that's the kind of maintenance the Board wants. N. Schrock said it is great but she can't get to her house and has to walk. R. Sullivan said he would like to put that to an end by vacating the road.
Harney said it still comes back to the fact that there is no brush on the Schrocks' portion of the road. He said they have had to walk in and out and asked and asked and asked. Harney said he thinks they deserve some answers and help on getting rock on the road. He said the Board needs to address it because if there is a fire, the County is going to be liable for it. Harney said they need to help give services to the residences. He said the mailman won't deliver mail, the school bus won't come down there, and the neighbors have to walk to their homes. Harney said the County allowed the houses to be built and he just doesn't see how they can ignore it. R. Sullivan said they didn't; the previous Boards of Supervisors did and they were wrong, frankly. Harney said two wrongs don’t make a right. R. Sullivan said that is why he wants to fix it. Stutsman said at the time a Level B road meant no maintenance, and now the Board is being told to upgrade a road because there are houses on it, when that wasn't in the County's plan to do that.
Stutsman said she doesn't know what to say, as it's all been said. Neuzil said there has been direction to staff from at least three Board members that they are going to pursue a road vacation. He said it is something he is not necessarily for, but at least there is direction to do that. Neuzil said the question is whether over the next two or three months, as it will take more than a month, there will be a solution to looking at some investment from the County and some agreement from the residents to put a load of rock down. He asked if the Board wants to give direction to staff to look at creating an agreement to put rock down. Neuzil said Harney is obviously one who wants to do that at least in the short-term from the first area to the hill for residents. He asked if there are three Board members who want staff to pursue some form of an agreement similar to other parts of the County for driveway accesses.
R. Sullivan said he doesn't want an agreement. R. Sullivan said he is OK with dumping some rock but he doesn't see the point of an agreement. Neuzil said the agreement would be a cost share. He asked if R. Sullivan wanted a cost share or does he want the County to do that temporarily. Stutsman said she can support an agreement, but part of the agreement is that the Secondary Roads Department will determine when gravel needs to be put on and when blading needs to be done. Harney said they already do that on their policy. Stutsman agreed. R. Sullivan said that agreement sounds like it is in perpetuity and if the Board is going to do the agreement, it should be done for a maximum 60 days. Harney said that is the same policy they use now. Neuzil said the Board isn't going to talk about making that kind of policy because they are just talking about giving direction to the staff to put rock down for 60 days so the residents can at least get to their homes. R. Sullivan said he is only OK with putting rock down if he knows there is a permanent solution. Stutsman said she doesn't think the Board is going to know that today by any means. R. Sullivan agreed.
Stutsman asked Hackathorn how many loads of rock they are talking about and how much it would cost. Hackathorn said they are talking about 1,100 feet of road, but it depends on how heavy they put on the rock. He said honestly he hasn't been back to Eagle Avenue in a month or so because he has been dealing with everything else. Hackathorn said his staff put down around 200 tons per mile this spring, but there were other roads they were putting down 200 tons per 100 feet. R. Sullivan asked what kind of investment the Board is talking about. Hackathorn said about $7.20 per ton of rock. Parker said with the equipment it comes to about $15 per ton. Hackathorn said he is guessing if the grater can go down and back they could have it down in two or three hours, although it is usually never that simple. He repeated he hasn't seen the road but he knows the road is in pretty bad shape. R. Sullivan asked if it would be a minimal $3,000 investment by the County for that portion of road. Hackathorn replied yes, give or take.
Stutsman asked if the Board is going to talk about a cost share. Hackathorn said he had a cost share this past spring and said a guy wanted to rock it with the County money, but he didn't think it needed rocking and that went back and forth. Hackathorn said he also went in and bladed the road, but then he got a call from someone that they didn't want it bladed and now some of their rock is buried. He said those are problems that can arise from cost shares. Stutsman said that is why she said Secondary Roads will determine when the road needs rock and when it needs blading, but no one wants to agree to that either. Hackathorn said it's a right-of-way; he can't think of many Level B roads that have houses on them. He said just yesterday Secondary Roads had a call on a county Level B road. Hackathorn said there are trees down all over and people are wanting his staff to clean it up. He said he had to tell residents that would call in that they were not going to get to a road because they are working on the other roads. Hackathorn said, granted, this is different because there are houses on the road, but pretty soon they are going to want to make hay and he will have to do something so they can get their hay out.
R. Sullivan said he wants to remind the Board, especially this week when they go out to the Johnson County Fair, that $3,000 on Eagle Avenue will make every single rural resident in Johnson County want $3,000 worth of work done on their roads. He said the Board can absolutely not afford to do it. Hackathorn said his crews could definitely do anything, it’s just an expense issue. Harney said the residents deserve the same service that everybody else gets. He said they need some rock; they're all paying taxes and they all deserve the right to get down the road to their residences. Harney said the Board has to spread money out and maintain all of the roads, as they are all in bad shape, and he would like to get some rock out on Eagle Avenue. Neuzil said he doesn't disagree with that, but the policy is that Level B roads are Level B roads and they get the most minimum maintenance as possible. He said because of the nature of the issue and the fact it will take a month or two, he doesn't mind giving staff the direction to move forward and put some minimum amount of gravel down so residents can at least get to their homes.
R. Sullivan said this idea that some residents are paying taxes and not getting the same services everybody else is ridiculous. He said he is sure in terms of purchasing property on and being assessed on a Level B road, they are not paying as much as someone on a Level A road. R. Sullivan said everybody is smirking and smiling; the Board could recess the meeting, get the Assessor, and ask him. He said the idea that everyone doesn't get the same service is what he has a problem with. R. Sullivan said Eagle Avenue is potentially a money sinkhole. He said the Board has had farmers from east of Solon in the Boardroom week after week ever since January. He said every time the Board tells them sorry. R. Sullivan said the other Board members can tell residents at the County Fair that they decided to put the $3,000 into this section of Eagle Avenue that nobody even goes through because only two or three houses are on it. He said it's not going to go over very well; it goes over real well in this room because there are 20 people in here who have a vested interest in the road. R. Sullivan said the Board's interest has to be county-wide. Harney said he thinks the Board's interest is county-wide and they are just trying to treat people fairly. He said they all know there are areas in the County that need gravel, grading, and a lot of work. He said the Board is going to have to come up with some money to address those. R. Sullivan asked why the Board doesn't go put gravel on some of the other Level B roads. Harney said they certainly could if R. Sullivan wanted to appropriate some of the money. R. Sullivan said he doesn't want to appropriate the money for Eagle Avenue; he wants to put it to an end.
Russell asked how many other Level B roads in the County have houses on them, and R. Sullivan said not many. Hackathorn said there are two that he can think of. Russell asked if the roads were rocked and how it works. Hackathorn said they're 50/50; a trucker is hired to come in. Russell asked if an outside contractor is hired to come in. Hackathorn replied yes. Russell asked what is the problem with doing that on Eagle Avenue. R. Sullivan said because he thinks that is a bad use of money too. Russell asked what the Board doesn't understand about the service like fire and stuff like that. He asked R. Sullivan if his house catches on fire if the firemen can get to his house. R. Sullivan said that when Russell bought property on a Level B road he knew exactly what he was buying, and what the maintenance level was on the road. He said there is no reason to think that if the Board vacates the road, Russell can have it as good or as bad as he wants. R. Sullivan said right now ambulances have to drive on private drives, some of which are concrete or dirt. Russell asked about the people on private drives when the ambulances can't even make it up that drive. R. Sullivan said if the Board vacates the road to Russell it will be up to him; he can do anything he wants. Russell asked what if he doesn't want it, and R. Sullivan said that is up to him. Russell said that is what he is saying; why can't they come to an agreement to rock the road. R. Sullivan said because, in his opinion, there are too many other people who are paying taxes all over the County who would like to have the same interest given to them but aren't getting it. Russell said those people already have rock in front of their roads. R. Sullivan said that's because they live on Level A roads. Russell said obviously it's a care issue and R. Sullivan doesn't care. R. Sullivan said if Russell wants to term it that way, that's fine. He said let the minutes show that he doesn't care, but he wants to move forward with this.
Chris Brenneman said he lives at 3049 Eagle Avenue and addressed an expensive bridge that was put over Clear Creek. He said at the time that the bridge washed out, the people living down there had only one way out and it was through that road. Brenneman said with the flooding that has been going on, if the road was to go out again, the peoples' only way out would be through that Level B road. He said, to him, what has happened to the road is more of a factor in that there hasn't been minimal maintenance, there has been no maintenance. Brenneman said the road used to be better than most gravel roads around because when a former Secondary Roads employee ran a maintainer for the County, it was a shortcut for him. He said to him it is not an issue of abandoning the road but an issue of people wanting to make it a dead end road so other people can't go through there anymore. Brenneman said the work that is being done is sometimes more damaging than helpful. He said the same amount of water is going to come right back down through the area regardless of who owns the road. He said he wants permission to go in there, cut the branches back, and then for the County to run a dozer through there. Brenneman said he isn't sure how much time it takes County employees to doze and he asked Hackathorn if it was about four hours. Hackathorn replied that to fix the last hole it took about four hours to haul some dirt in. Stutsman asked how long the fix lasted. Hackathorn said he thinks it is still there. Brenneman said individuals can still get through the road, but the brush is coming over and everybody knows if they go in and cut some of the brush, there are going to be certain people who are going to have fits about it.
Parker said he thinks he has taken all the Board members out there at one time or another over the past year or year and a half. He said Hackathorn and he have gone out there and taken a look at it. Parker said there are areas on that road they did not want to drive through because they did not want to do any further damage to the roadway. Parker said everyone knows this has been the worst spring on record and there are Level A roads he and Hackathorn were avoiding because they did not want to do further damage to them. He said they have been instructing their trucks to stay off of Level A roads where by driving through them they would have done further damage to the roads. Parker said that is the reason he and Hackathorn haven't been up there and effectively they have had other pressing obligations due to the flood and the winds.
Stutsman said this is a very, very tough decision for the Board because there are so many sides to it and they could agree to so many sides of it. She said she thinks it boils down to political will and she knows that people living on Level B roads who want maintenance don't understand that because it is very important to them. Stutsman said the decisions the Board makes have repercussions for everybody in the County, so she gets concerned that if they change so many policies there will be no point of having policies at all. Stutsman said she would love to say to fix roads and bring them up to Level A standards but then what would the Board would say to the next person who comes in and says they want to get their combine into a field and it's on a Level B road. Stutsman said those individuals say they pay taxes and they want the County to fix the road so they can get in there too. She said they would tell her it's important because corn pays $8 per bushel and that is their livelihood. Stutsman asked if the Board would say no to that person; she said they have just as much right too. Harney said except Stutsman makes it sound like the Board wants to do the whole road; the residents are asking for the road to be maintained at Level B standards.
Brenneman said by shutting the road down, nothing will be gained because Russell wants to maintain it, and he has been running his equipment up and down the road anyway. He asked what is going to change from here to there. R. Sullivan said individuals can contract with anyone they want to do anything they want. He said if residents want to dig the ditches out or cut trees they can do that. Brenneman asked why then they would shut the road down. R. Sullivan said the Board can't do that now, but if the road is in private hands residents can do whatever they feel like they want to do. Neuzil said the reason County staff can't cut trees back right now is because they don't know where the right-of-ways are. He said the County does not cut back trees if staff doesn't know whether the trees are in the right-of-way or not. Brenneman asked if they can get permission to cut back the trees. Neuzil asked Brenneman if he meant getting permission for residents to cut back trees via a permit from Secondary Roads. He replied the Board allows that all the time. Stutsman agreed. Brenneman asked if he has to have 100% cooperation from those who own the land. Meyers said he has to have consent from the majority of the property owners. Harney said Brenneman will have to get a permit from Secondary Roads to work on the right-of-way. Brenneman said the road's shape was as good as any Level A road when he moved on it in 1976. He said he can't remember ever being snowed in because he could always get out through the timber. Brenneman said the road was never in the shape that it is now and it's because of pure neglect.
Neuzil said they are getting back into what the options are, and the direction has been to look at vacating the road. He said the question is whether the Board wants to do something in the interim between the process. Neuzil said he has never been a huge supporter of vacating the road unless there is a 100% buy-in from residents. He said the option other than vacating is to have the residents go in there and cut back the trees to allow for minimal maintenance on the road. Neuzil said the Board is back to the same three or four options, and if they aren't going to get 100% buy-in from residents then the Board will have to make a decision. R. Sullivan asked if there are three Board members who want to put rock on the north section of the Level B road. Neuzil said the reason that this is different from the other Level B roads is simply because there are homes on it. He said he thinks that if you look at the precedent that may be set by the Board putting some investment in the Level B road, it's because there are at least homes on the road where, other than the two exceptions where there is a shared agreement, the County does not send maintainers down unless they can get down and maintain them. Neuzil said he would be supportive of giving direction to staff of up to $3,000 for maintenance.
Stutsman said she wants to know if the Board is going to do a cost share. R. Sullivan said yes, because then the Board will have to cost share the others. Neuzil said ideally that would be the case, but he is talking about whether there is still direction to vacate the road. Harney said the cost share goes away if the Board decides to vacate, otherwise the Board would treat it as they do now. R. Sullivan said there have already been three people who have said they want to go forward with vacation and so the Board has agreed to pursue that. He asked Parker if that was his understanding and Parker confirmed. R. Sullivan said in terms of putting rock on the road, for now, there were at least three people who said they were interested, so the discussion now is whether they cost share that. R. Sullivan said he would like to see it cost shared because that's what happens in other places. Neuzil asked if when the Board cost shares with those two other entities on Level B roads, are they individual residences. He said because in this case the Board has a couple of residences that would be a part of the cost share. Hackathorn said he believes on the Level B roads there are two houses that are related so that usually goes pretty smoothly. He said the other one is down on Meyer Avenue, the most recent one down; he said his staff determines when to rock it and then sends the residents a bill for half of the cost. Neuzil asked how many land owners there are from the point of the Level A road to the hill where the trees start. Hackathorn said just two. R. Sullivan said there are just two houses but there is also agricultural land on the other side of the road. He asked how the Board deals with that. Neuzil said the question is would the cost share be with everybody involved or just the Schrocks. Hackathorn said that is another problem they have with some of the cost shares; there is a house there where the original owner moved out and someone else bought it. He said the new owner doesn't want to pay because all they do is drive down there to get to their field. Hackathorn said he just says it is out of his hands so the land owners have to pay or the road doesn't get rocked. Harney said in this situation, if the persons beyond the Schrocks don't want to pay, they don't get gravel. Neuzil said it is up to the Schrocks; and he asked if there are four land owners, how does the County bill that. Harney said the issue that always comes up with cost shares is that those who don't participate still use the road and it always becomes a thorn in the sides of those who do pay. Parker said the Level B road is still a County road. Stutsman said it is a public road. Neuzil said half of the rock is being paid for by the public. Hackathorn said, in the past, Schrock would call him if he wanted his road bladed and that's how things were handled up until this past spring. He said everything just went sour with all the roads. Parker said it was in bad shape.
Brian Ives said he doesn't live on Eagle Avenue but his family has some property there in the center of the area that is going to be vacated. He said the residents need rock desperately, but he might need to get in there to cut firewood or fix some fence. Ives said if the Board cost shares the road and he tracks it up, some guy might say he didn't pay part of the cost share to drive on it. He said if he didn't drive on the road his family's property would be landlocked. R. Sullivan said in cost shares the public still has full right to access the road and Ives can drive over it if he wants to. Ives said doing so could cause some hard feelings. Stutsman and Neuzil agreed that it does and that's why the Board tries to avoid cost shares. Ives said he has signed Bob Woods' petition because he'd rather see the road stay open and tree trimming and minimal maintenance might be a good idea. Stutsman said that is what the County is doing now. Harney said a little sunlight can do wonders for a road like that. Ives said thanks and R. Sullivan thanked him.
Neuzil said, in his opinion, given the nature of things and the time process, they should be giving direction for staff to put some minimal maintenance rock down so residents can at least get to their homes. He said the Board determined at this point not to create a cost share program because the pursuit is to vacate the road. Neuzil said if the Board chooses not to vacate, then there would be a process of going through a shared maintenance for a certain section of the road, where residents would agree to cut the trees back to get back to minimal maintenance. R. Sullivan repeated there are three people who want to vacate the road, so assuming they stay with the vacation, he assumes the process would happen.
Stutsman said she is thinking out loud and asked the Board if they want to go through the process. She said it would be costly to go through the process of vacation when there really doesn't seem to be a whole lot of support to go through it. R. Sullivan said the cost of vacation compared to doing this every single year is the problem. He said if there isn't willingness to vacate the road, then it should be fixed. R. Sullivan said this in-between stuff costs the County a lot more and causes these meetings. He asked what the hourly cost is of having everyone sit here all day. He said everyone has been discussing this for an hour and a half. R. Sullivan said it is absurd if the Board is not willing to come to a final solution. Stutsman said the Board talks about being fair, but if they are not going to cost share with this road than she thinks they should not cost share with any of the other roads. R. Sullivan said it has to be cost shared or the Board wouldn't do it. Stutsman said Schrock has offered to cost share so the Board should go ahead and cost share. Harney agreed. R. Sullivan said he really doesn't even like the conversation about going forward with a Plan B because he is hoping the Board doesn't have a Plan B. Stutsman said the Board does need to go through the public hearing process and, technically, the Board isn't supposed to make up their minds until they go through that process.
Hackathorn asked if the cost share is from here on out or just for a short time. R. Sullivan said it is just until the Board can get the vacation process going. Stutsman said she thinks the Board should either vacate or upgrade the road to a Level A. Neuzil said that is a possibility; to extend the Level B road up to a certain point and make up to where the trees start a Level A road. Stutsman that is what she is referring to. R. Sullivan said it would cost thousands of dollars to buy the right-of-way from Dean Moore who doesn't want to sell it. He said the Board will have to justify to everybody in Swisher, Solon, Lone Tree, and everywhere else that that was the best use of the road money. Harney said he heard Hackathorn say that he could go in, grade it, put a crown on it, put rock on it, and maintain it at that level. He said he doesn't think the County has to go into that to a total degree but the ditches should be graded some. Hackathorn said if the County is going to keep doing it he would to get some ditches in there. Harney said residents need to have some. Hackathorn said they need drainage, they need a crown, and they need some materials there to make a road. R. Sullivan said that is the cost and doing patchwork every year is getting more expensive. Hackathorn said it's hard on 66 feet and there has to be drainage. Harney said that is the issue; if there is 66 feet or not because they won't know until the survey is done. Parker said he knows they don't have 66 feet anywhere through that Level B road. R. Sullivan agreed. Parker said that is why it is a Level B road; because in the 1920s or 1930s when they were converting roads to Level As every landowner had the option to donate the right-of-way to increase to a Level A. Harney said Planning and Zoning says it's there and so they won't know until they survey it. Parker said he doesn't know where the exact right-of-way lines are.
Harney asked if the County is going to put some rock on the road for the time being. R. Sullivan asked if there is a cost share agreement. Neuzil asked Parker if he recommends putting a temporary cost share agreement for the next 30 or 60 days. Parker said Secondary Roads would have to draft it and then send it to the County Attorney's Office for review. He said it would have to come before the Board for formal discussion. Harney asked if there were formal agreements with the other roads. Parker said yes, they do have agreements. Harney said he didn't realize that. Parker said by the time they have gone through the agreement process they may have already gone through with the vacation. Neuzil said to him he still would like to give direction to County staff to invest up to $3,000 towards minimal maintenance on the road to allow the residents to get to their homes, and then continue to pursue vacating the road. He asked if any other Board members wanted to do that; if not the next option is to create a shared cost agreement.
R. Sullivan said he is OK with putting money towards maintenance if there is a cost share. Neuzil asked if there are two other Board members who want to do that. Stutsman said she wants to be consistent with what they've got on the books for the two other roads. R. Sullivan said he is seeing Meyers, Neuzil, and Harney, so the Board will pursue the two things simultaneously. He said, obviously, if the vacation comes about first, then it would preempt the other. Neuzil said the direction to County staff then would be to pursue a cost share agreement with the residents for some temporary upgrade and then also to pursue the possibility of road vacation. He said maybe they will try to keep the timeline in the next couple of months for both projects. Parker asked if he meant for the cost share agreement to be a draft that goes through the Attorney's Office. Neuzil said the Board is talking about being consistent with what he has with those other two landowners with driveways and 40 feet of right-of-way.
Parker asked if the Board wants him to proceed next week. R. Sullivan said he doesn't want it in perpetuity either. He said the Board is talking about a short term here. Stutsman said until the issue is resolved. Parker asked if the cost share is only for the portion of roadway that gets to the Schrock property. Harney said the portion just past their house. Harney asked Parker if that meant the Schrocks wouldn't get any gravel until the agreement is drawn up. Stutsman said she would like to give County staff direction to go ahead, put the gravel down, and then make it retroactive with the agreement. Neuzil said he is certainly fine with that option. R. Sullivan said they will see if they pay. Stutsman said the County can always shut the gravel off and Parker agreed. Parker said, based on what has been happening, and given that it does take staff time to draw up an agreement, he wants to recommend that the staff proceed with road vacation public hearing activities. Parker said his staff can do the informal rocking activities right now, proceed with the road vacation hearing activities, and if the road is not vacated, then time would be better spent negotiating an agreement for permanent activity. Stutsman, Harney R. Sullivan, and Lyness said that is fine.
Neuzil said the residents need to get their heels in if they want the road vacated or not. Harney said there will be a public hearing to discuss it. Parker asked if the cost share would be for the residents to pay half of the costs of work done to the road. Stutsman said the County will pay half and either one or four residents will pay the rest of it. She said that is not for the Board to determine, that is the residents' issue. Lyness said she thinks she is hearing for rock to be put down because the County may never get anything else from anybody on the road. She said if the road is not vacated then they will work on a cost share agreement for the future. Neuzil said, potentially, they will look at getting the trees cut back. Parker said if the residents want to come in to cut trees down on a Level B road, Secondary Roads will approve that right-of-way access agreement without hesitation. Harney said the Board has the indication that residents do want to. Meyers asked why they haven't up until this point. Parker said there have been several meetings on the issue, and it goes back and forth. Harney said the reason it hasn't happened is because there are individuals who don't want the trees cut, and sending a citizen out there to cut in front of the houses instead of Secondary Roads staff becomes an issue.
Lyness said you can only cut the trees if it's the County's or if the property owner gives permission. She said the problem is the County doesn't know where its right-of-way is, and if a property owner doesn't want the trees cut another neighbor can't come in and do it. R. Sullivan said then $10,000 has to spent to figure out where the property lines are and again, the farmers in Lone Tree, Hills, Solon, and Swisher are going to ask the Board why they are spending the $10,000 there and not on their roads. Neuzil said last fall the Board gave direction to do so. R. Sullivan said if the road can be vacated the direction can be preempted. Parker said exactly and it is not a quick process. He said it takes a lot of time to do all the research and survey to find out where the lines are. He said it may take several months to get that accomplished and they are talking somewhere between $12,000 to $15,000 to survey the land. Stutsman said she doesn't remember agreeing to start surveying. Harney replied the Board did. R. Sullivan said it will be a moot point if the road is vacated; if it's not the Board will have to talk about where to go from there. Stutsman said she doesn't remember giving a definite timeline when to vacate the road.
Hackathorn said his staff would have taken care of the trees last winter, but weather conditions wouldn't allow for it. R. Sullivan asked if everyone is clear where the Board is at. Stutsman said she is not clear about whether the Board is going to cost share the road or not. Parker said the goal is to try to cost share and get funds from the residents to help pay for 50% of whatever County staff does out there. He said because they don't have a formal written agreement, he doesn't know if they can make residents pay for it. Meyers said then the Board is going to do it on good faith. Neuzil said if residents don't pay, it won't ever happen again. Harney asked the Schrocks if they agree to the cost share. Stutsman added this would be without the agreement. Schrock said it isn't up to just them, as there are other residents interested as well. Stutsman said that is great. Lyness said Schrock can go ahead and verbally talk to the other residents.
Adjourned at 11:23 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By John Deeth and Kaitlyn Dodds, Recording Secretaries