Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:00 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.

Key Issues

Sutliff Bridge

Neuzil said they met with the Conservation Board to discuss putting the Sutliff Bridge under Conservation's authority. As a Board they need to determine policy in regards to whether the Board of Supervisors and County government would like to take back the responsibility of the Sutliff Bridge after one third of it was destroyed by floodwaters in June 2008. County Attorney Janet Lyness said she discussed the insurance liability issue with Insurance Agent of Record Robert Saunders and he said the County has enough insurance. Lyness said to insure the Sutliff Bridge, in addition to the other properties the County insures, would involve a nominal fee. She asked FEMA about the timing of this, because the lease is an agreement and they can't retroactively change anything. Lyness reported that FEMA Private Non-Profit Task Force Leader Stephanie Severino said, if the County terminates the contract with the Sutliff Bridge Authority (SBA), the County could then apply for FEMA funds. The County would have complete responsibility for the bridge, including maintenance and insurance forever.

Lyness said the original agreement states that if the bridge fell, it would be the responsibility of the Sutliff Bridge Authority to dispose of it. If the Board of Supervisors chooses to take back ownership of the bridge, it would then become the County's responsibility to pay for disposal of the bridge. Lyness said the County can choose to terminate the agreement with the SBA and take on the responsibility of the bridge, including future maintenance, or the County could choose to terminate the agreement with the SBA and apply to FEMA for demolition funds. She said the SBA is not eligible to get any FEMA funds. Lyness said, if the County doesn’t want to maintain the bridge the County might want to think about taking over ownership again, because they can get FEMA money to dispose of it. Lyness doesn’t know if the SBA has the funds to demolish the bridge.

Neuzil said the Board needs to give direction regarding an interest in taking the bridge back. If that is the case, the Board will need to vote on terminating the contract at a formal meeting. Neuzil said they would negotiate something with the Conservation Department to assist the Board with maintenance and insurance. Sullivan said FEMA does have a deadline now. Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Representative Charles Avery said the deadline that was established between FEMA and the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management division is May 15, 2009. He said the deadline is for the decision on who will assume responsibility for the bridge and if the request will be for the bridge to be brought back to be a functioning facility or if it would be demolished. Avery said FEMA is going to be around for awhile, but still there are deadlines. Stutsman asked how much money FEMA will put towards this bridge.

Avery said the SBA submitted a project worksheet for the removal of the bridge from the river, but they are not the proper applicant. He said the dollar amount FEMA will fund depends on what the applicant submits. Avery said, if the bridge is going to be repaired, the dollar amount of what that will cost needs to be presented to FEMA and another project worksheet will need to be written up. Stutsman asked if they are guaranteed full funding or does it depends on how much money is left. Avery said it has nothing to do with monies that are left over. FEMA will look to see if any insurance is involved. He said this has nothing to do with flood insurance that would have to be purchased since the bridge is over a river. Avery said, if there are donations that came in specifically for the bridge, those would be deducted.

Stutsman said she is hesitant for the County to get into another project of maintaining this bridge. She asked if they can take back ownership and still have the same agreement with the SBA. Lyness said no, it would be the County's responsibility. Lyness said Johnson County would be fully responsible for maintaining everything for this bridge in the future. If people want to contribute to help pay for them, it might help, but once they accept FEMA money they cannot have a lease like this again in the future. Stutsman asked if the SBA could hold a fundraiser and donate monies raised to the County for bridge maintenance. Lyness said they can; however, the bridge will be maintained whether or not the Authority donates money.

Stutsman said they could expect even a higher level of maintenance. Lyness said Johnson County will decide how much they are going to maintain it. She said they could not tell the Authority that, if they want a higher standard, they need to have a fundraiser. Harney asked, if the Board of Supervisors takes back the bridge and accepts FEMA funds to rebuild and it floods again, will FEMA cover it again. Avery said FEMA would come back and evaluate the situation. For this disaster the spilt on this funding is 90% FEMA and 10% State. Avery said typically disaster funding is 75% FEMA, 15% applicant, and 10% State. Avery said that due to the size of this disaster the applicant portion was taken out. He said, if there was another disaster, FEMA would come back in. Avery said the bridge supports were hit by houses around there that got washed into the bridge and knocked it from its structure.

Meyers asked who paid for removing the part of the bridge that fell into the water. Avery said SBA has somewhat paid for the removal, because it needed to be pulled out of the river. He said a project worksheet was submitted with SBA as the applicant, but they are not the proper applicant. Meyers said right now they are standing the cost of pulling that out of the river. Avery said they are hoping that Johnson County will become the applicant for that portion. Meyers asked if they can do that retroactively. Avery said yes. Stutsman said they will still have to take back the bridge in order to do that. Harney asked what the County would have to invest in the bridge to make it pedestrian-safe if they take it back. Neuzil said the other two-thirds. Stutsman said the bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places and asked if they are required to put it back to historical register status. Meyers said his understanding is that once the bridge is destroyed, rebuilding a replica would not be considered the same thing. Harney clarified that what he was asking about was whether the insurance company would require upgrades on the sides of the bridge for safety reasons.

Conservation Director Harry Graves said they have eight former County road bridges in use at Kent Park. They have been required by the County's Loss Control Specialist to put safety railings on those bridges. Sullivan said about ten or 15 years ago, the SBA insurance required an upgrade to a portion of the rail on the south side of the bridge. Graves said the Sutliff Bridge lost its historic integrity when the east section was destroyed in the flood. There is a bridge in Fayette County that is still on the National Historic Register even though the deck of the bridge has been removed and it is not useable, it is still extant.

Graves said, if the County takes the bridge to repair it, it must be determined whether Secondary Roads or the County Conservation Board is best suited to hold the bridge. He asked where the bridge leads and if it terminates on the west end, on private property. Stutsman said yes, it is private property. Sullivan said since there is a river, there is DNR and then County Road right-of-way. He said a person would never have to traverse private property and they can go from County Road right-of-way to DNR to the bridge. Stutsman asked if that right-of-way was given up when the property was vacated. Graves said it appears that it is in private ownership. Stutsman said it would be logical that if the County vacated the bridge, then they would vacate the road too. Graves said it has been mentioned that it is a bike trail and he isn’t sure it is. He asked if a person could legally go across from the west of the old bridge to Sutliff Road prior to June of 2008. Sullivan said it has always been his understanding that it was County right-of-way for about 100 feet and then it became DNR. Harney said he thought the easement was vacated. Stutsman said they need to think about the maintenance and if they are going to upgrade this so it can be part of a trail.

Graves said that if the bridge is removed from the National Register of Historic Places there would be no funding available from the Department of Interior. A replacement structure will not be a historic bridge. Graves said he has been told that the connecting pins of the bridge have been inspected and proven sound. He asked who made that determination and if there is any documentation. Sullivan said an engineering firm from Des Moines did the inspection and the Authority has that information. Graves said they might want to have that information reviewed by the County Engineer. Stutsman said they probably want to have it updated. She asked if the inspection was done before or after the bridge went down. Sullivan said it was done right after the flood. Graves asked if any underwater inspection has been made of the limestone supports to determine if they have been undermined or damaged by scouring. He said that is pivotal to any work to be done on the bridge.

Graves asked, assuming the bridge can be rebuilt to its pre-disaster stage, what type of structural inspection is required, how extensive it is, and who is qualified to make such an inspection. Stutsman asked who inspects his bridges. Graves said their bridges are inspected by the insurance inspector, himself, and Superintendent of Field and Shop Operations Larry Lovetinsky. He said they will need to have a bridge inspector come in at some point. Harney said in this situation it would be best to have Engineering and Secondary Roads do it. Graves said he thought a certified engineer must do a thorough structural inspection. Stutsman said underwater divers inspected the Hills Bridge. Graves said that might be a prerequisite, because it may show there is no solid foundation left to work on.

Graves asked who would make the determination on the requirements for annual maintenance of the bridge. He said he thinks an engineer would need to sign off on that and volunteers can be involved. Lyness said volunteers can be involved in the same way as when Kent Park has volunteer days for park clean up. People can volunteer to do things for the bridge. Graves said volunteers would have to sign a waiver. Lyness said yes, just as the Old Settlers Association does at Walker Park, volunteers could come to the Conservation Board to get approval to provide money for a specific project. She said the Board of Supervisors would want to completely terminate the agreement with SBA, because this agreement gives them authority to do anything they want with the bridge. She thinks, if it is going to be taken over by a County department, that the department would want to have more control, since they would have responsibility for maintenance.

Graves asked what the rules would be for the consumption of alcohol and smoking on the bridge. Harney said it would follow what is established in the parks. Graves asked who would enforce that. Harney said that would be the Sheriff. Sullivan said the deputies enforce it now at Hills Access and Scott Park. Stutsman asked who enforces it now. Graves said park rangers enforce it in the most populous areas. Harney said he expects people would have to request a permit from Graves, if the Conservation Board or Supervisors were to take over operation of the bridge, for a special occasion and then that request would go to the Sheriff and County Attorney for approval. Graves asked if the Board chooses to take the bridge back, would a line item be created in the County budget for the sole purpose of maintaining the bridge. Stutsman said they don’t know how much will be spent on maintenance.

Graves said a lot of that has to do with what FEMA requires to be done. The Authority has been working to replace the planks on the bridge as funds were available. He said, if the requirement is to replace all of the deck, and if they replace the deck, that will likely require replacing the stringers. Graves said if that is the case, theoretically they will almost have a new bridge. Graves said, if the piers are structurally sound and the connecting pins are solid, then that it could be a fairly good bridge. He said it seems that an annual inspection would be required. Graves asked what would be included in an inspection, if there is a checklist, and who is qualified to make an inspection. Graves asked where funding would come from to complete the maintenance and inspections. He also asked if an engineer would oversee the design and construction of the replacement section. Avery said that is totally up to them and the County would go through proper procurement measures. FEMA is going to look at things that are cost reasonable.

Graves said it seems to be impossible to reproduce a Parker through-truss section. Avery said it is possible. Graves asked if it reasonable under FEMA. Avery said yes. Stutsman said she thought FEMA would replace just the basics. Graves said that was his understanding also, just a functional bridge. Avery said a section of bridge was lost and if the County is going to take this over, they would like to see the missing section replaced. FEMA will replace a bridge. Avery said they are probably not going to replace the abutments or replace the planks on the other two sections unless it is proven they were destroyed during the flood. Graves asked if FEMA will replace the abutments if they are scoured underneath and rendered structurally unsound. Avery said FEMA will repair that, possibly as a hazard mitigation measure.

Graves asked if the County decides to take the bridge back and accept the FEMA funding, who would be the liaison with FEMA. Avery said whoever the Board deems to be the person in charge. Sullivan said former Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan did it while he was the executive assistant to the Board of Supervisors, so they may ask the new Executive Assistant Andy Johnson to step in. Harney said he thinks the Executive Assistant and Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak would be the two to handle the paperwork. Neuzil said in the next week or so they need to form a subcommittee to help answer some of these questions. He doesn’t know if they will have time for a full engineering inspection by the time the Board needs to make a determination. Sullivan said they don’t necessarily need to, because Avery said FEMA would pay if something was damaged in the flood. Avery said, if it can be determined that something was damaged in the flood, which would probably come from an engineering report, the bridge will be eligible for FEMA funding. Lyness asked if FEMA would pay for the engineering firm to do the assessment. Avery said no.

Meyers said the SBA is not eligible for FEMA funds to tear the bridge down or to repair it. He said the Board will have to deal with it one way or another. Stutsman said the original agreement says the SBA is responsible for demolishing the bridge. Her understanding from the last meeting with FEMA was that they were going to replace it with just the basics. Meyers said it was going to be some kind of a walkway. Stutsman said there was no talk of repairing piers or scouring. Those are the questions she needs to have answered. Avery said it was a pedestrian bridge and they aren’t going rebuild it to a bridge that is accessible by cars. Meyers asked if it would be a replica of what was there. Avery said that is something someone from the State Historic Preservation Office would have to answer, because there is still two-thirds of a historic bridge there.

Harney thought Graves said they lost that significance when it went down. Graves said they have two-thirds of the bridge left that is historic and whatever is put there in the future is new bridge. It may be able to be made to look like the original, but it won't be of historic value. Avery said if their plan is something that is cost reasonable, then it could be eligible for funding. Stutsman asked if the County could apply for additional FEMA funding. For instance, if FEMA was going to do something plain and the County wants it to look like it did pre-disaster. Avery said yes, through an optional funding portion of the Public Assistance Grant called Improved Project Request Funding. He said they would have to look at what it would take to get the bridge back to pre-disaster condition and whatever the County wants to do on top of that would be considered an improved project. Avery said that means funding would be capped at whatever it would take to bring the bridge to pre-disaster condition.

Stutsman asked Graves if this would be an appropriate project for the Conservation bonding. Graves said no, not in the way they presented the Conservation bonding in the ballot measure. He read the following from the Iowa Code: "the purpose of the Conservation Board is to authorize Counties to acquire, develop, maintain, and make available to the inhabitants of the County public museums, parks, preserves, park ways, play grounds, recreation centers, County forest, wildlife, and other conservation areas. To promote and preserve the health and general welfare of the people. To encourage the orderly development of conservation and natural resources. To cultivate good citizenship while providing programs for public recreation." Graves said that the conservation of Johnson County's cultural heritage is part of Conservation. The cultural heritage, in regards to the bridge, was ruined in the 2008 flood. Graves said it will be very costly to replace the Parker truss bridge because the technology is no longer available.

Neuzil asked Graves if the Conservation Board would be able to hold a meeting to determine the Board's interest in taking over operation of the bridge before the deadline or is FEMA looking at the County taking it over and working out the details later? Avery said they are trying to establish who is going to be the proper applicant. Neuzil asked if they need to apply by May 15, 2009. Avery said Johnson County is already an applicant. Sullivan said they need a letter of intent. Stutsman said the application can't go forward until they establish they are owners. Graves said the Conservation Board can hold a meeting with 24 hours notice to the public. He asked the Board what their time frame is. Neuzil said the Board of Supervisors needs to determine by May 15, 2009, if they are going to terminate the contract with the SBA and they would make that decision in a public setting.

Stutsman asked, if the Board finds out that the process is more than what they initially bargained for, would they be able to pull out. Avery said that is something FEMA would have to answer, because they are the main funding body. Lyness said, if they terminate the contract with the SBA, she doesn’t think the Authority would want to get back into it. Neuzil said they might have to decide to tear down the bridge.

Lyness said, if the County decides to take it on, they still have the choice of rebuilding or demolition. She said she doesn't think FEMA will require the County to say which option they will choose by May 15, 2009. The County just needs to decide if they are going to terminate their contract with SBA.

Harney said it is probably in the County's best interest to reclaim the bridge to get the funds to demolish or repair it, if they are willing to take on the responsibility for the bridge in the future. Lyness said she thinks the SBA doesn’t have enough insurance to pay to have the bridge removed and that is why they were applying for the FEMA grant. Harney said the insurance company dropped them after the flood occurred. Lyness said, if they want to get rid of the bridge, they probably do want to terminate the contract. Sullivan said the insurance company dropped the liability insurance. He thinks they still have a claim but it is a different insurance. Lyness said they probably need to talk to the SBA. Stutsman said, if this is going to involve getting into things they hadn't anticipated, it might be better to say no to the money and proceed with another arrangement like giving money directly to the Authority to fix the bridge. Neuzil asked if the engineering and design is something that wouldn’t be covered under the 100%. Avery said an engineering firm coming in to look at things is not covered, but it does cover the rebuilding. It doesn’t say that those things would not specifically be covered but are evaluated individually on applicant's project worksheet.

Neuzil said the design could be paid for and the engineering of that is part of the application. He said County Engineer Greg Parker is a PE and he does that. Graves said Parker had to hire people to do the underwater inspection. Harney said he can get them to do that pretty easily. Neuzil asked who pays for that. Harney and Stutsman said the County pays. Graves asked if that cost can be reimbursed. Stutsman said no. Graves said that is an upfront expense they won't get back, but it is the foundation of the bridge, because they need to know what shape it is in. Stutsman agreed and said it is foolish to move forward if it isn’t stable. Neuzil said it is foolish to move forward on repairing it or demolishing it until they know about the foundation, but both can be paid for by this assistance. Graves said once they repair it, he understands the County owns it forever and would repair and maintain it forever.

Sullivan said he sees no point in not taking it back. He doesn’t think they should put the SBA through this if County can collect 100% of the funding to repair the bridge. He thinks the Board should help out the SBA members. Stutsman said she agrees with that for taking the bridge, but she isn’t sure if taking over that maintenance and ongoing responsibility forever is worth it. Sullivan said that is the second decision. The first decision is if they agree to take it back which is a no-brainer because FEMA will pay. Graves said ultimately it is going to be removed or repaired. If they let it go and the decay starts to become a navigation hazard, the Army Corps of Engineers will step in. Stutsman asked what they would do. Graves said whatever they feel is appropriate to maintain that navigation channel. Neuzil said that decision would be made very soon after they make this determination, because the work should be completed within 18 months of the disaster.

Avery said permanent work should be completed by November 27, 2009. Graves asked if there was a provision for extensions. Avery said extensions of up to 30 months can be granted, but they still need to know who will be responsible for this. FEMA would like to know if they want the bridge demolished or rebuilt. Harney said he agrees with Sullivan that it makes sense to get some assistance in tearing it down or reconstructing it, but he would only support that if the engineer does an inspection of the supports. Sullivan said a test might have been done, but they would have to ask the Authority.

Conservation Board President Tom Hoff said he thinks it is imperative that Lyness confirms that Saunders makes sure that he has accurately described the use following the reconstruction or rehabilitation of the bridge. Hoff said it must be made clear that the traffic on the bridge will include partying and the use of alcohol. Lyness replied that Saunders is very familiar with that.

Hoff asked for clarification that the County, not FEMA, would pay for repairs in the event of a subsequent flood, which causes significant damage to the bridge but with no disaster declaration. Avery said, if it is not a federally declared disaster, FEMA will not be involved. Hoff said he is alright with tha,t as long as everybody knows that FEMA might not be there next time.

Hoff said there were abutments in the Des Moines River from the railroad that used to go across. The Union Pacific Railroad decided to abandon the bridge and all the decking was taken off of it. Hoff said the reason they can build a bicycle trail along there now is because the Union Pacific was told by the Army Corps of Engineers that they would have to remove the abutments from that river. He said it was simpler and more cost-effective for the Army Corps of Engineers to work out a deal with the State and counties to allow them to take the responsibility to re-deck it and use it for a trail. Hoff said, if the bridge goes down, the Army Corps of Engineers will come in and tell the County what to do

Hoff said, if they don’t have FEMA to pick up the cost, it will be the Board's decision on who to contact. He agreed with Sullivan that the County should reclaim the bridge and then decide what to do after engineering reports are completed. Hoff said, if the County doesn’t rebuild it, the bridge will have to be torn down and the SBA doesn’t have money for that. Conservation Board Member Gerald Morgan said he would like to see this bridge rebuilt, because it is a tourist attraction for Johnson County. He said there are a lot of people in the County that use this bridge for parties or other activities. Morgan said he thinks they need to preserve it, but the County is going to have to budget money to maintain it over the years. The Conservation Board cannot use the $20 million Bond money for the bridge. Morgan said the SBA might come up with some money but down the road it will be the County's responsibility.

Dvorak gave the Board copies of a map which shows that the area all the way from the new Sutliff Road to the old bridge is county right-of-way. Neuzil said there is potential to get a bicycle trail from the new Sutliff Road to that end of the bridge. Sullivan said there is a dirt road there and it is in fine shape. He said the west side of the bridge was buckled and the approach is lying all over. Graves said the approach was devastated by the flood on the west end. He asked Dvorak if the area on the map identified as "unknown" is an existing County right-of-way and hasn’t been vacated. Dvorak said no, "unknown" means that it doesn’t have a street name. Graves asked if it has ever been vacated. Dvorak said no, not according to the Auditor's Office.

Dvorak said the adjoining resident operates a logging business. Harney said the resident owns property there. Neuzil said not in the County right-of-way. Graves said from what he saw, he thought the road reverted back, based on the usage. Stutsman asked if the other end of the bridge was damaged too. Sullivan said the approach was damaged. Neuzil said they can see how it is buckled and if they can determine that was damaged during the flood, the repairs for that end can also be funded. Lyness said SBA included that end in their initial application. They wanted to complete that span as well as the west approach. Stutsman asked if they can apply for FEMA funding for that. Lyness said yes.

Neuzil said the Board needs to officially vote for or against terminating the contract with the Sutliff Bridge Authority. If there are three members who want to do that, the County Attorney's Office would assist. Lyness said she assumes that is what the SBA wants. Sullivan confirmed that. Lyness said she believes the item is on the informal agenda for April 23, 2009. Neuzil said the Board will have an informal poll on April 23, 2009. Lyness asked someone to contact the SBA to make sure they are okay with it. Sullivan said he will contact the SBA.

Neuzil said they will have it on the informal agenda April 23, 2009, to poll the Board to determine if they want to terminate the contract. From there they will need a subcommittee to address the questions Graves has. Neuzil said they'd need the County Engineer and a member or two of the Conservation Board. Neuzil asked Lyness if she wanted to be a part of that work group. Lyness said Executive Assistant Andy Johnson could join the subcommittee after May 1, 2009. Neuzil asked Sullivan if he wanted to be on this subcommittee. Sullivan said, since he has had so much involvement, it would be better if someone else participated; so Meyers volunteered.

Neuzil said he would be Meyers’ alternate. He said they will want County Engineer Greg Parker on the subcommittee. Dvorak volunteered to be a liaison, because he is a flood plain manager for the County, not only with FEMA and Homeland Security but also with ECICOG, who does a lot of their grant writing. Sullivan said Planning and Zoning Assistant Administrator R.J. Moore has been working very hard on the village plan and the bridge comes into discussion frequently, so he assumes Moore has information on that. Stutsman asked what the committee is going to decide. Neuzil said the Conservation Board has to determine if they will be willing to take over the bridge and discuss the questions Graves raised. With the Board’s approval, the subcommittee would apply for the proper applications and review the engineering designs.

Lyness asked if they want them to make a recommendation to the Board. Neuzil doesn’t think the committee should do anything without the Board of Supervisor's approval. Stutsman said they haven’t made the decision to replace the bridge yet. Harney said no, they have not. Sullivan said the decision they have to make is whether they are going to take it back. Stutsman thinks that is a no-brainer. Meyers said they might not need a committee, if there is one basic decision. Harney said they need to consider how much the insurance will increase. Lyness and Sullivan said it is about $2.00. Harney said they also need to arrange an inspection for the abutments to determine if they are eroded and if so, if the County will repair them. Neuzil said they need to decide if the inspection process will be paid out of the Secondary Roads budget. Harney said, if they take it back, it is their responsibility to have an inspection.

Stutsman said Budget Coordinator Richard Claiborne needs to be involved, if they start talking about money. Harney said they need to know if they have already inspected it. Stutsman asked if long term maintenance for the bridge would come out of the Rural Fund. She thinks this is going to be a huge financial commitment from the Board. Neuzil said if they have to hire divers it will cost $5,000 or $10,000. Meyers said the SBA has held fundraisers and they have been doing the maintenance on the bridge for 25 years. Meyers said they should have a good idea of what the costs are. Stutsman said they had a certain level of maintenance, and she is afraid the expectation of maintenance will be higher if the County takes over ownership of the bridge.

Harney said they know it will be higher. Neuzil said the SBA is used to autonomy and if the County takes back the bridge, the SBA will have to get used to the rules changing. Neuzil asked if they would want someone from the Authority to be part of the process. Graves said the Sutliff boat ramp is DNR property. Neuzil said the committee will consist of someone from Conservation, Meyers with Neuzil as his alternate, Parker, and Dvorak. These meetings will be open to the public and they encourage the SBA members to attend.

Neuzil said on April 23, 2009, the Board will discuss the termination of the contract with the Authority and they could have a vote by April 30, 2009. Stutsman said they would still have time to decide if they are going to demolish or restore the bridge. Avery said FEMA would like a decision by May 15, 2009, but understands there may be some extenuating circumstance necessitating an extension.

Rental Permits for South Capitol Street and Harrison Street Properties

Meyers said he was talking with a representative from the Iowa City Housing Authority who asked if the County had taken possession of the three houses across from the Jail. Meyers said the rental permits were due for renewal and the representative was trying to figure out if the City still had possession. He said he consulted Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell and learned that the properties are in the County’s possession, so the Housing Authority is not going to renew the rental permits. Meyers said, if a permit lapses and they want to get a permit in the future, the applicant is required to uphold any changes that have taken place in the housing codes. However, with a renewal, the conditions are grandfathered in and they aren’t subject to any changes. Meyers said it relates to the next item, too, because there was some discussion about using one or more of the properties as an emergency overflow for the Shelter House.

Facilities Manager David Kempf said he discussed with Meyers that it would be easier to renew it and not use it than to let it lapse. Kempf recommends the County renew the rental permits for the house on Harrison Street and the one on the corner. He said the third property has some damage, so they will not seek a renewal permit for it. Harney said most ordinances say that if the property changes hands, the property must be brought up to the new standards. Meyers said someone from the Housing Authority was going to look into those details. Stutsman said she too thinks that if property changes hands, it must be brought up to the new standards. Kempf said the City of Iowa City has contacted him wanting to know if they are interested in renewing their rental permits. He was waiting to see if there was interest in doing so. Kempf said he thinks the house on Harrison Street would require the least amount of work to bring it up to code.

Stutsman said that at the Space Needs Committee meeting, Kempf was just talking about one of the three properties and now he is considering two. Kempf said if they are grandfathered in and rental permits are reissued, the County should get the second one. He said, if however, the properties require much work to bring them up to the new standards, they will evaluate the situation based on the required repairs. Meyers said the cost of the permit is relatively low but there are single-family dwelling inspections once every two or three years. He said a typical rental property permit is easily renewed. However, this property inspection might reveal a list of repairs and maintenance items that the County does not want to undertake. Meyers said in that case, they wouldn't renew the permit.

Harney said he is concerned that the cost to rent and maintain the facilities will not be worth their time. He said he was told that the reason the City is getting rid of those properties is that they were becoming cost-prohibitive to maintain. Kempf said he wants to be very clear that he is not recommending the County rent these houses. Meyers said he isn’t either. Kempf said his only reason for pursuing this is because of the request from the Shelter House for housing its overflow population. He is not recommending the County rent these properties, because the County does not want to become landlords. Neuzil asked if Kempf needs official approval for seeking a renewal on the permits. Kempf said he will find out. Harney said he would like to know if they even need a rental permit since they are going to use it for a temporary emergency shelter. Kempf said from a liability standpoint, they would need to lease the house to the entity that is running the Shelter House.

Kempf said he will find out the cost for the agreement and if there are expenses they would incur. Sullivan asked if any deadlines have been imposed. Kempf said yes. Meyers said possibly because the permit is expired. Sullivan said they need to make sure they don’t let the deadline pass. Kempf agreed.

Shelter House Overflow Project Proposal

Neuzil said the Board has seen the request from Consultation of Religious Communities Chair Dorothy Whiston. He said the Board is not making a decision today, but they need to decide how they want to address this request. Harney said he is not interested in using the third floor of the new Health and Human Services Building for overflow housing. Neuzil asked if the Board would like to hear from members of the Consultation of Religious Communities at an upcoming meeting because they offered the opportunity to the Board. Harney said they received a letter and the Board can reply to the letter.

Meyers said he is not in favor of using the third floor of the new Health and Human Services Building for the Shelter House overflow population either and he will not vote in favor of the resolution they submitted. Meyers said he understands the needs of the Shelter House and that is why he brought up the previous discussion about the three houses across from the Jail. He said there are other options such as the Fisher Building and the old Public Health Department building. Stutsman said she is not interested in using the third floor of the new Health and Human Services Building for the Shelter House overflow population either. Sullivan disagreed. He said he doesn’t see a reason why not to allow the Shelter House the use of the third floor of the new building because the County has space and the Shelter House needs space. Harney replied that the Board of Supervisors has already publicly said it would not allow other governmental entities in that space. Sullivan said they had some private business approach them. Meyers said they have other properties that are residential that could be used. Meyers said he has concerns such as privacy needs, bathroom and shower facilities, and the potential costs.

Neuzil asked if three members of the Board want to consider the proposal. There were not three Board members who wanted to consider the proposal, so Neuzil said he will send a letter to Whiston stating that the Board of Supervisors is not interested in pursing the proposal for the Shelter House overflow population to use the third floor of the new building. Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia said they have talked about utilizing other County facilities for the project. Correia asked the Board if they have an interest in exploring other County facilities for use by the Shelter House overflow population. The Board agreed to consider other possibilities. Neuzil said he will draft a response letter for the Board to edit before sending it to Whiston.

Kempf asked the Board if it will consider using another County facility. Stutsman said yes. Kempf said the Fisher Building and the Armory Building are scheduled for demolition this summer and asked if he should delay those projects. He said the funds set aside for demolition of the Fisher Building could be switched over to the three houses on Capital Street and Harrison Street. Kempf said he has the disposition of the old Public Health building as a discussion item on the Informal agenda for April 30th, 2009. Stutsman said if the County demolishes several building at the same time, they will get a better bid than if they do one at a time.

Johnson County Council of Governments Housing Task Force – County Appointment

Sullivan said they no longer have an elected official task force but the elected officials did talk about having an ongoing staff level discussion. The Board has to decide if it wants representation at such discussions. Sullivan suggested Correia as the representative. Stutsman said the new Executive Assistant Andy Johnson would be the one with the most expertise. Neuzil said Johnson or Correia would be a good choice. Stutsman said she supports Johnson. Sullivan said they need to tell JCCOG Executive Director John Yapp who their representative is going to be. Stutsman said she will do that.

Landfill Policy Clarifications

Sullivan said once a year former Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan would give a disc to landfill staff for data reference when residents came to deposit trash. The disc contained data of property addresses that were eligible to use landfill credits. He said after M. Sullivan left they were trying to piece together this process and Information Technology Director Jean Schultz had lots of questions. Schultz told Sullivan the landfill staff could just download the information instead of waiting for a disc.

Sullivan said two residents contacted the Board Office requesting reimbursement for payments they made to the landfill. He said one person had recently bought property, but their name had not been entered in the database at the time the disc was sent to the landfill, so they were not allowed credits and had to pay.

Sullivan asked what the cutoff date is if somebody sells a property in the middle of the year and the previous owner has used some of their landfill credits. He said Schultz brought up the question of what happens when a parcel of land is split. Sullivan said until decisions are made, a couple people will be waiting on reimbursements. Stutsman said another consideration is whether to reimburse renters or just owners. Sullivan said land is first identified by the property address and then the owner. Meyers said the decision should be made based on who pays the property taxes. Harney said their decision in the past was for the property owners only, not renters. Sullivan said they have had situations in the past where owners have given renters permission to take items to the landfill on the owner's behalf.

Stutsman said there is no problem when they have credits available. The problem is when the owner runs out of landfill credit and the renter wants to use the landfill. Stutsman said they could go back to the old system, too. She asked if this is becoming a financial issue. Sullivan said the reimbursements people want are less than $20.00. Neuzil said it is a popular program. Sullivan said he thinks the best process would be for Schultz to figure out what works best. She understands the issues and Sullivan asked her to develop a plan to present to the Board.

Harney said his understanding was that M. Sullivan would give that disc to the City of Iowa City so City staff could advise people on who was authorized to use the landfill. Stutsman said, if someone buys a property, she thinks they should be eligible. Harney said they need to report that to the City though. In the past people abused the system. Sullivan said every month the City could download an updated file. Meyers said recently, when he went to the landfill he only had to provide his address. Sullivan said a new property owner did a bunch of cleaning and took trash to the landfill, but apparently, the credits for the property were all used up in February, 2009. So this new property owner had to pay. The Board has to decide on a policy for these situations.

Stutsman said if there aren’t any financing problems, she would say they should update the data regularly. Sullivan said it is unusual for a property to change hands more than once a year. He said 2,000 pounds doesn’t cost that much to dispose of, so it could be a non-issue. Meyers said he thinks the fee is about $48.00 a ton. Sullivan said even if it happened a couple times, it would be less then $100.00.

Dvorak said the landfill takes pretty much anything except white goods and electronics. He was involved in the initial process and he would update a disc once a year. He said they started doing it electronically and the City wasn’t downloading the file regularly. Dvorak said Schultz has gotten a handle on working with that division of the City to help them update monthly. Sullivan said people have approached the Board of Supervisors with reimbursement requests, because the landfill charged them for disposal of trash. Stutsman summarized that only property owners will be allowed landfill credits and the list will be updated if a property changes ownership. She asked if this is something Schultz should take over. Dvorak said the policy is in place, but they just don’t have anyone to administer it. Harney said he thinks Schultz needs to maintain the flow of information to the City of Iowa City and if there is an issue, the Board's executive assistant should handle it. Sullivan asked if the Board would like him to convey the information to Schultz. Stutsman said yes.

Charging Building Permit Fees to Other Governments

Dvorak gave the Board a list of facilities they have completed total inspections for and the fees the City and Conservation Board would have paid. Dvorak said they evaluated what Iowa City charges the County for the buildings they are building. The costs don’t include all the inspections, but do include $7,000 for the plan review for the parking ramp and $14,000 for the plan review of the new Health and Human Services Building. He said they had to pay $50 an hour for the physical inspections of the structure. The County's policy is not to charge government agencies for building permits and this has been the practice since before 1989. Dvorak said when this was put in place they did not have a building code. Sullivan said they should charge other governments and themselves. Dvorak said the City of Iowa City doesn’t charge themselves. Sullivan doesn't think it is fair for the Planning and Zoning Department to incur $9,000 in costs from other departments.

Neuzil said he has a different approach. He said they charged the school, so they should charge the City of Shueyville. Dvorak said the school asked for a reduced fee and the County said no. Sullivan said technically the Iowa Mennonite School (IMS) isn’t government because it is parochial. Neuzil said he would treat an IMS situation similar to Shueyville and he isn't sure they should charge the Johnson County government. Stutsman said they need to have an accurate accounting of costs to run County departments. A permit fee is part of the cost to run a department and it is transparency in government. She said that Dvorak's staff is incurring costs, because they are providing a service, and someone should pay for that. Sullivan agreed.

Neuzil said, if they do that for Planning and Zoning, they would have to do it for everything. He said, for example, if Human Resource Office Assistant Geri Owen works in the Board Office for an hour. Would Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek bill the County for Owen's time? He said there are many intergovernmental things staff does and they just share costs. Harney said he doesn’t think they should charge Secondary Roads as an interdepartmental area, but he does think Conservation should be billed, because they are a separate entity like the Health Department. Sullivan said he thinks Secondary Roads should pay. If Dvorak's staff is inspecting a shed at Secondary Roads, then Secondary Roads should pay the Department of Planning and Zoning. Stutsman said if the Department of Planning and Zoning is busy inspecting County and City facilities and not charging for those services, their budget may not show any revenue. Neuzil asked why the County building inspectors are working for free for the City of Shueyville. Dvorak said because that has been the policy for any government building.

Dvorak said when they inspect a non-government building, he asks the Board if it will give them relief or waive fees. He said he brought this to the Board, so they would be aware of the situation and to get some feedback. Neuzil asked if this is part of an ordinance. Dvorak said no, it is office policy. Neuzil asked if there are three Board members who want to charge governmental agencies outside of County government. Stutsman, Neuzil, and Sullivan said yes. Neuzil asked if there are three members of the Board that would like to charge all County departments for building fees. Sullivan and Stutsman said yes. Harney and Neuzil said no. Meyers said departments that have already gotten their projects done aren’t going to pay this and asked how many other projects they are going to have in the future. He asked if such a new policy will single out only a few departments.

Harney doesn't approve of the County billing themselves. Sullivan said it would only be Conservation and Secondary Roads. Stutsman said Ambulance is going to build a building. Sullivan said that will be in the City of Iowa City. Meyers said Conservation is already underway. Sullivan said they could start charging Conservation. Harney said the inspection fee for the JECC is built into the contractor's fees. Dvorak said he could do it on an individual basis, but he didn’t want to have to come to the Board for each decision. Neuzil said there is a change within other City governments. Sullivan said Swisher has things in the works, Shueyville probably will, and it is possible in Hills. He thinks they should be prepared to charge them. Neuzil said they can evaluate the others on an individual basis. Dvorak said he would be comfortable with that.

Harney asked Dvorak how this will affect the agreement with Hills for doing their inspections. Dvorak said he would have to look at the contract again, but he doesn’t remember cities being exempt. Neuzil said Planning and Zoning will go ahead and charge the cities. Dvorak asked if they want him to come up with a written policy. He said they have never had a written policy, just an office policy. Neuzil asked if Dvorak wanted an official vote on the office policy. Dvorak said he would rather discuss this with his liaisons. Sullivan asked for clarification. Dvorak said that for inspections of County buildings, he will ask the Board as needed, but that for City, State, or other government agencies, Dvorak will come to the Board all the time. Harney said he thought those agencies were automatically billed. Sullivan and Neuzil said the Board has just made that decision, to always bill those agencies. Harney said that within County government, Dvorak will discuss each inspection with the Board. Neuzil and Sullivan recommended that Planning and Zoning have a written policy and Dvorak said he will develop that with his liaisons and present it to the Board.

Dvorak said Assistant Planner Josh Busard has spent a lot of time working on the Conservation Board Building and he said he would like Busard to give the Board an update. Busard said he has worked directly with Fusion Architect John Shaw, the electrical and mechanical engineers, and Hart-Frederick Consultants Vice President Doug Frederick for the landscaping and site design. They are trying to ensure the construction of a building that will achieve LEED Certification. The building is out to bid and Apex is the general contractor. Busard said he is working more directly with Apex Construction and filing paperwork with the Green Building Council. Stutsman said it sounds like Busard is the lead consultant. Neuzil said the best process is for Dvorak to determine if this work is taking up too much of Busard's time and then discuss it with Dvorak's liaisons to determine what to do.

Dvorak said their department was asked to do LEED's review for a City building and they decided not to do that. This is the first one Busard has been actively involved with and it has been a good learning experience. Stutsman said the Board is always hammering departments for revenues and this is part of the building project. If Dvorak doesn't collect this, it is revenue and Planning and Zoning is missing out. Stutsman said that if Busard didn't do it, Conservation would be going outside to hire a LEED's consultant and she thinks Conservation should pay. Neuzil said they can’t put this on an informal agenda for future discussion. Stutsman asked Busard what his hourly rate is. Busard said $21 to $22 an hour. Dvoark said, if they were to charge out, they would add in benefits. So it would be $30 to $32. Sullivan said that's almost $3,000.

Land Use Plan North Corridor Growth Map Work Session

Neuzil said the Board needs to come to a consensus before the map goes back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and give direction to staff, so they can include the changes within the Land Use Plan. The Board discussed various meeting dates and times and scheduled the meeting for May 6, 2009, at 2:00 p.m.

Sullivan left at 10:53 a.m.

Talking Points for May Site Visits With the County Attorney and Public Health Department

Stutsman said that at the site visit, she would like to address security at the Courthouse. Stutsman asked if County Attorney Janet Lyness has the animal rights ordinance. Neuzil said Dvorak has it, but it might be with Lyness now. He said that at the Public Health site visit, he isn't sure the discussion will get beyond some of the things happening at state level.

Sullivan returned at 10:56 a.m. Sullivan said he would like to talk about short-term space needs at the Courthouse.

County Government Week

Neuzil said there will be a display in the lobby of the Administration Building. He asked if there is an interest in scheduling a lunch or a State of the County address. Sullivan said Linn County plays up County Government Week with the League of Women Voters. Neuzil said about 100 people and the press get involved and they have a lunch. Sullivan said he talked to the Johnson County League of Women Voters and they expressed no interest. Stutsman said they could ask Public Access to televise the State of the County, if they hold it before or after the meeting. Sullivan said it has been disappointing, because over the last couple of years no one has shown up.

Harney said people just don’t show up. Neuzil said it would be nice if the Communications Committee could find some organizations that would be willing to organize something. Sullivan said the Iowa City Press-Citizen might run an op-ed piece if they receive good talking points. Neuzil said he will write something for the paper. Stutsman asked when the City has their State of the City address. Sullivan said he thinks before a Council meeting. Stutsman said the Board should do that during County Government Week before the meeting, so it is televised. Neuzil said he will put that on the formal agenda for May 7, 2009.

Scheduling of Key Issues Meetings

Stutsman said she serves on a state committee, which meets every second Wednesday during the Board's key issues meeting time. She asked the Board to consider rescheduling the key issues meeting to another time. Neuzil said they could schedule one key issues meeting a month since the workload usually slows down in the summer. The Board discussed the meeting schedule and agreed on one key issues meeting on the fourth Wednesday of the month beginning in May 2009.

ISAC District 6 Legislative Workshop and Board Schedule

Sullivan said the ISAC District 6 Legislative Workshop is scheduled for June 10, 2009, at Kirkwood and he is planning to go. Sullivan urged everyone to go. Stutsman said the elected officials usually go, because the workshop covers legislative issues for all county governments.

Employee Directory

Sullivan said the Department of Health and Human Services employees don’t have a list of County employees and visa versa. Neuzil said this might be moot once the phone system in the Administration Building is upgraded. Harney said he would like to have a list with everyone's name, department, and phone number. Neuzil said Board of Supervisor's Secretary Jo Hogarty has most of that information. Stutsman said the list should be for internal purposes only and Harney agreed. Sullivan said they need to make sure DHS and Juvenile Court employees are on the list. The Board agreed to ask Hogarty to work with Information Technologies to prepare a list and Stutsman emphasized to keep the list updated.

Orientation and Initial Goal Setting for New Administrative Assistant

Neuzil said they began making a list of things that each Board member will be responsible for giving Johnson background information on. Stutsman assumed the liaisons will work closely with Johnson to bring him up-to-date. Sullivan said it was he and Stutsman when M. Sullivan left. Neuzil asked if they wanted to continue. Sullivan and Stutsman said yes. Sullivan said County policy is to conduct a six month evaluation and asked if the Board wants to have a 90 day goal setting session with Johnson. Stutsman said the liaisons can talk with Johnson to ask if he wants a 90 day goal setting meeting with the Board. Stutsman suggested having an informal reception on May 1, 2009, inviting County staff to meet Johnson. Meyers thought it would be a good idea. Neuzil said they can send out an email to inform everyone.

Board Office Operational Manual

Stutsman recommended removing the supervisor's names from the manual and just putting positions. Sullivan agreed and recommended removing the pictures also. Claiborne asked if the Board would like him, Johnson, and Hogarty to review the Board's suggestions and edit the manual. He said the Board could approve it at a much later date. The Board agreed with Claiborne's recommendation.

Project Updates

Stutsman said the Open House went wonderfully. The building and staff did an incredible job. She also thought the program went really well. Neuzil said the building looked great. Stutsman said she would like to send a thank you note from the Board to all the department heads. The work that Kempf and his staff did was great. Neuzil said he'd like the Board to send a card to Kempf. He said he was glad Representative Dave Loebsack attended but was disappointed that members from the press did not attend. Stutsman said they should submit a picture to the Press-Citizen. Neuzil said the Chamber of Commerce will have a picture and will write a follow up in their letter.

Joint Emergency Communications Center Update

Harney said the JECC is scheduled to meet April 28, 2009. He said Dvorak is working on the approval for the tower sites. Neuzil said it would be nice to have M. Sullivan come in to present an update to the Board. Harney recommended a site visit.

Internal Processes, Expectations, and Other Operational Issues of the Board of Supervisors Office

Neuzil said the newspaper published a nice story about Executive Assistant Andy Johnson. Stutsman said she wishes Hogarty would start keeping scrap books again. Sullivan said Hogarty was doing that up until a couple years ago. Stutsman said the Board of Supervisor's scrap books should be turned over to the historical society. Sullivan said they should figure out where the scrapbooks are and Johnson should be responsible for assigning Hogarty any work associated with that. Neuzil said he would like to figure out where the art projects are. Harney said he thinks that is on the agenda for the next Communication Committee meeting. Neuzil asked him to talk about the renovation of the Board room. Neuzil said there are grants available. He doesn’t know if the Communications Committee needs a budget or if Kempf adds it to the cost of the project.

Neuzil thinks the Board room will be adequate. He said they need to think about blocking off the use of the Board room across the street for the time when the Administration Building is undergoing renovation. Stutsman said on Wednesday mornings, the Board can meet in a smaller room but not on Thursday's for the Formal and Informal meetings. Neuzil thinks they will need to find alternative meeting rooms beginning in August 2009 until the end of the year. Neuzil asked if they had come up with names for the rooms yet. He asked the Communications Committee to talk about that too. Meyers asked how many rooms there are. Sullivan said about six. Neuzil said they can name them after townships or roads.

Future Meeting Agenda Items

Neuzil said they need an update on the Administration Building to get everything started and to know when people will be moved around. Sullivan said they have a Joint Cities meeting in September 2009. Neuzil said that is September 16, 2009. He hasn’t heard back from East Central Iowa Council of Governments Executive Director Doug Elliot and asked if anyone else has more information about the Public Leadership Group. Sullivan said the Public Leadership Group meeting is at 5:00 p.m. on May 21, 2009, at the North Liberty Recreation Center. Neuzil asked what they are going to do about strategic planning meetings. Neuzil said they will keep the meeting scheduled for May 20, 2009. Sullivan said they need to start working with Human Resources because 78% of their expenses are salaries. He would like to get ahead on the budget process by discussing this early. Stutsman said the article in the Des Moines Register talked about performance based budgeting and goal setting. She thinks the Board needs to set goals and decide if they only fund mandated things.

Adjourned at 11:33 a.m.

______________________________________________________________________

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By:

On the _______ day of _____________________, 2009

By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary

Sent to the Board of Supervisors on August 12, 2009 at 5:00 p.m.