MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DECEMBER 4, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell: Proposed Revised Purchase Agreement with City of Iowa City for 504 South Capitol Street, 510 South Capitol Street, and 7 East Harrison Street..................................... 1
Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell: Damage to Bridge Owned by Johnson County.......... 3
County Engineer Greg Parker and Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: Dust Alleviation Chip Seal Policy....................................................................................................................................... 3
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan................................................... 6
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors................................................................. 6
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:19 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, and Rod Sullivan; absent: Sally Stutsman.
Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell said a revised purchase agreement with the City of Iowa City for 504 South Capitol Street, 510 South Capitol Street, and 7 East Harrison Street is attached to the agenda. The only change that has been made is to paragraph nine which was previously just marked preserved. There was a proposal by the City of Iowa City for a provision that would have required design approval by the City Council and staff of any facility or building the County builds on city property including these properties. The other provision was a right of first refusal if they were going to sell the properties again. The County Attorney's recommendation was they were comfortable with the right of first refusal and if they decided they wanted to sell the properties back to the City they would do so. The Attorney's Office was uncomfortable with giving a design approval sign-off to the City. They were concerned about what affect that would have on the County’s ability to create a building that fits their needs. The City Council did not consider the issue formally. However, in an informal discussion with the City Manager, he clarified he wasn’t looking for design approval, rather he was looking for something less than that, though it wasn't clear to Chappell exactly what that meant. Chappell said they decided to wait since the City was not talking to any other buyers.
Chappell said that the City got back to him with new proposed language. Chappell reviewed the language with County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek and R. Sullivan and concluded they were not comfortable with the language. Instead, Chappell proposed different wording as documented in a handout to the Board. The new language has been approved by the City Attorney's Office and Chappell has reason to believe also by the City Manager. The language the City proposed was the following: “The County agrees that should it ever construct a building on any part of the properties here conveyed the County will make best efforts to achieve the suggested design guidelines contained in the suggested design guidelines marked as Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by this reference." Chappell noted that the City also included a page of design guidelines. The City’s concern is with the near south-side area. The City’s near south-side design plan was put together several years ago and is similar to the County’s Land Use Plan.
Chappell said that the part of the area in question is what the City refers to as a government plaza area with the Courthouse, Post Office, and the School District’s administrative building. The City has a general plan of what they would like to see to develop that area. Chappell said that he rewrote the language to acknowledge the plan is out there and the County will make a good faith effort to make sure anything the County builds on that property will be consistent with or complementary to that plan. Additionally, there are several things in the plan which are not quite done yet. One thing Chappell put into the language is that if the County is going to operate consistent to the plan then they would like some assurance not just that other property owners in the same area will be held to the same standard, but also that there are public improvements the City will be responsible for. The City has agreed to a collaborative effort. He said he is happy with the language at this point. A good faith effort is a different legal standard than best efforts. His interpretation is that they will do their best to make it happen.
R. Sullivan asked Chappell to mention that the City is still interested in the right of first refusal, meaning if the County would ever want to sell the property, the City wants first choice to repurchase the property. Chappell said they have not told him they want that change. He said the County Attorney's Office did not have any concerns with that provision because if the County decides to sell the property it means they have decided to not build the justice center there or the County no longer has use for it. Harney said a part of the parking lot area they are looking at for the justice center was designated as a park area. He asked how that affects the plan. Chappell said the entire block is anticipated as being part of a parking structure that would have other elements and a plaza/park was a part of the proposed project. The City has acknowledged in section nine that with the understanding that the parking ramp locations and landscape details and materials may vary from the illustrations of the near south side design. This acknowledges that the City will not put a parking ramp in that place. The City has replaced it with a parking ramp they plan to put up where St. Patrick’s Parish was which will be an extensive parking ramp with multiple uses including condominiums.
Chappell said the City’s real concern is that whatever the County builds will be aesthetically consistent with buildings in the area. They do not want the County building a monolithic, concrete jail with old fashioned iron bars that will dynamically change the existence to what will be the south entrance to downtown. Chappell said there will be several restraints when they build the justice center, not the least of which will be the cost and what the taxpayers are willing to pay, security, and fitting the needs of the Courthouse and Sheriff’s administrative offices. He thinks the current language accounts for all those factors. R. Sullivan said similarly there was the issue of first floor commercial that the City is requiring in that district which the Board thought might have been an obstacle. Chappell said the area of concern would be zoned public and there are examples for commercial use on the ground level of a taller justice center and it may be something for the County to consider. R. Sullivan said he wanted to thank Chappell for all of his hard work. He said to put this item on the formal agenda for next week.
Chappell said they had some conversation about the bridge the County lost some time ago and what they plan to do about it. He said he will put it on the December 11, 2008 informal meeting agenda. He wanted to wait until Supervisor Stutsman was present since she has been very interested in this project.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said the Board appointed a committee to look into the possibility of changing the dust alleviation policy to add chip seal to certain areas and segments. The committee consisted of R. Sullivan, Harney, County Engineer Greg Parker, Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Hackathorn, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore, and himself. They had Chappell review the document. The intent is to allow individuals or businesses in rural areas, if they prefer, to have a better dust-free surface, instead of having calcium chloride. They are considering requiring residents to put 250 feet of chip seal on either side of their residence for a total of 500 feet. The proposed policy goes into some details about neighboring property and uncompleted segments. The proposed process is annual so every year an individual has to renew their permit through the County Engineer's Office. Secondary Roads has trained individuals ready to do the initial work. The individual property owner will be required to perform any maintenance.
Dvorak said they received a question from Hackathorn concerning the timeline. They did not understand his question so they plan on discussing the issue with him when he is present. R. Sullivan said it is just an implementation schedule of dates. Dvorak said the document will not change but the implementation schedule might.
Neuzil asked when the last time was that residents were allowed do this. Dvorak said right before he came to the department in 1989. Neuzil said when reviewing the meeting agenda for today there are two significant things that have happened. One is the process of purchasing the homes across the street for the jail and the second is this policy concerning gravel dust. He said he receives so many complaints from residents about the gravel dust issue and this is an opportunity to allow residents to have a better quality of life. Neuzil said that when the County revoked the individuals right to dust control it was a huge mistake. He wanted to congratulate those who worked on the committee because this initiative is long overdue. The changes in the policy will allow them to see if this will work. He said he has concerns about a situation where there are a number of homes that agree to do this. He said that in the end it would make more sense if the County would consider taking it over instead of trying to negotiate a particular contract with each land owner.
R. Sullivan said they specifically wrote the policy so they could do that but would not be required to do it. If individuals can make a case for the County paying for the chip seal then the Board can choose to do so. Neuzil said a future Board will likely want to consider that rather than going through the whole process again. He said that people need to be reminded that when they sign these agreements and then sell their land, that future land owner needs to know they are responsible if they want it. Another issue is if a group of residents decide to have it chip sealed, then one moves away, and the new resident does not want to do it so a small chunk is unfinished. Those are the types of issues he hopes to avoid if they get a pretty good stretch of road. Or in the future look at adding shoulders and making it part of the County’s road projects. Neuzil said this is a cost saving measure for the County because the residents are paying for this so it's less rock the Board needs to allocate to Secondary Roads.
Harney said part of the reason behind this is the demand for individuals wanting to have dust control that is managed and lasts longer than the calcium chloride. One of the issues he sees is requiring residents to have 250 feet on each side with the possibility of having it extended to meet up with the neighbors. But in respect for individuals wanting to have the dust control, he is going to support that. He said the County Engineer has valid concerns that if they chip seal and the County takes it over then it should be upgraded to standards that Secondary Roads is required to do by State standards. They are trying to do the best they can to accommodate homeowners.
Dvorak said if the Board moves forward with the policy, the committee will go back to the table to discuss more about the chip seal policy for actual development areas. It would be significantly different from this policy and include things such as the addition of right-of-way and putting different types of bases underneath and not just spreading oil on the gravel. They would plan on taking on control after a certain time. R. Sullivan said there may be places in the County where they require a resident to donate right-of-way before they do any dust control.
Harney said he would not put embargoes on it, and that the classification of the road remains gravel. The level of maintenance would also remain at that of a gravel road, as far as requiring sand, salt, and plowing of snow. Moore said they tried to make the embargo issue clear in the policy because the County allows some residents to pay for dust alleviation and now have come back and asked to embargo which was not part of the agreement. R. Sullivan said it should be noted that if they adopt the policy it will cause them headaches year after year because the policy requires the County Engineer to make a lot of judgements as to what is appropriate, how far things ought to go, and what type of maintenance is adequate. Whenever they set up a situation where the County Engineer has to make a lot of judgments, there will be people who disagree with those judgements who will come to the Board. The Board is aware ahead of time this will happen. The question is weather the headache for the Maintenance Superintendent, County Engineer, and Board is worth the result of the policy and the Board decided it was.
Chappell said there are several things that need to be addressed in the draft. One concern is he feels the draft does not properly inform residents what extra maintenance they are responsible for. As it is written, it indicates that “the applicant will be responsible to maintain the surface at the applicant's cost as directed by the County and as specified in the permit.” Chappell suggests if the draft is left as is without having the County Engineer give information about what types of maintenance residents will be responsible for, then the engineer needs to make sure the permit spells out what maintenance they'll be responsible for, how it will be paid, and who will do it, an independent contractor or by the County who would then get reimbursed. These questions are not answered in the language of the document. He said he was not at the meetings where they discussed his reaction to the changes and maybe the thought was it would be easier to put in a permit. R. Sullivan said that it is exactly what they want to do.
Chappell said another thing that needs to be done is if they are going to have this policy, the County needs to revise its snow and ice policy to make sure some reference is made to these types of roads. The County's statutory immunity having to do with snow and ice removal is contingent on having a snow and ice removal policy and following it. If they want to be consistent, there should be some language in the policy addressing this change in road type. When he first learned the County had roads that were not chip seal roads but where treated with chip seal, he realized they needed to address those in the policy.
Neuzil thanked Chappell for his advice because everything mentioned seems valid. Dvorak said they were hoping to have a copy of the permit so the Board could see Chappell’s concerns should be addressed in the permit application form. If the language is not exactly correct then they will rely on Chappell's help. Neuzil said when the residents put in $2,000 to $3,000 in material to stop the dust when the next year comes and there is a hole in the road, the Engineer is going to determine if that needs to be fixed again. Anyone who has seen chip sealing surfaces knows it takes three to four years of base to determine how much needs to be fixed per year. Clearly putting all necessary information in the permit is the best option so residents are informed that if the County Engineer finds holes the resident is responsible for fixing it. There are a lot of residents in the County who are paying a $1,500 bill for calcium chloride who would pay $3,000 to not have dust for the entire year.
Harney said he has concern with what Chappell mentioned about maintenance expectancy as well as the snow policy. R. Sullivan said the snow policy needs to be addressed. If the Board passes the chip seal policy, people cannot even apply for a permit until the spring. Dvorak said people can apply in February, 2009. Meyers said it would not apply to this season at all. R. Sullivan said it would not apply to this season because chip sealing can not be done in February or March. While he agrees changes must be made to the current draft, they can move forward as long as they address the snow policy this winter. Harney said there would have to be a stipulation that it would not be implemented until the draft is updated. Chappell said he thinks the stipulation is laid out in the implementation schedule because the policy does not get implemented as a practical matter until February 1, 2009 when the County Engineer starts to certify chip seal contractors. Harney said he just wants to make sure they actually do it.
R. Sullivan said he will try to get Parker and Hackathorn to attend a future meeting and a copy of the permit document. Neuzil said it would be nice to have this done by the end of the year. Dvorak said he hopes to get the document to the Board so they can review it before the meeting. R. Sullivan said by having this on the December 11, 2009 meeting agenda, it will be an evening meeting so the public could attend, and it will get done so residents can apply February 1, 2009. R. Sullivan thanked everyone for their efforts as they have been working on this since late 2005.
Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan said he had a few meeting reminders. On December 8, 2008 a budget work session is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. with the Treasurer's Office, Recorder's Office, and the Public Health Department. On December 9, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. an open house at the new SEATS/Secondary Roads building is scheduled. On December 10, 2008, a key issues meeting is scheduled at 9:00 a.m. and a budget meeting is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. with Information Services and the technology budget. Neuzil asked M. Sullivan to check with Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne to see if he wants to add a couple more departments because of the cancelled meeting on December 1, 2008.
Meyers attended a committee meeting to discuss fringe area agreements between Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, and Tiffin, a SEATS Advisory Board Meeting, and the annual AARP and Task Force on Aging holiday party.
Neuzil introduced Mohamed Nasraddin, a student from West High School who is job shadowing for the day. Neuzil reported that he will be having a Listening Post on December 5, 2008 at Bruegger's on Riverside Drive at 7:30 a.m. Neuzil said hearts are out to Sally and Roger and the entire Stutsman family for the loss of their son Mike. He had the opportunity to meet Mike twice, once at a Chamber of Commerce event where Mike Stutsman was discussing farming and sustainability and how to live off the land. Neuzil said that he is a great guy and will be really missed within the community.
Harney said he echoes what Neuzil said. This was such a big loss to the whole family. Harney attended a meeting with the Department of Transportation, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, and meetings with several area legislators.
R. Sullivan said the Board has begun the FY10 budgeting process and he encourages the public to tune in to see how the County is proposing to use tax dollars in the future. He attended liaison meetings with Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia and Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Director Kris Artley. R. Sullivan said Facilities Manager David Kempf has informed the Board the Health and Human Services building is now scheduled to open in early January, 2009. R. Sullivan thanked the legislators for their outstanding work. He noted that due to the holidays, the Board's regularly scheduled Thursday meetings will be moved to Tuesday, December 23, 2008 and December 30, 2008. The Board is also required to have an organizational meeting on January 2, 2009. R. Sullivan reminded employees to participate in Chow Hounds for Charity, a fundraising lunch for Iowa Shares and the United Way.
Adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on December 17, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.