MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
OCTOBER 1, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
East Central Iowa Council of Governments Planner Gary Hughes: Environmental Review Requirements for Property Acquisition Funding Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Including Authorization to Publish Public Notice of a “Finding of No Significant Impact on the Environment with Intent to Request Release of Funds”......................................................................................... 1
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: Lacina Drive........................................... 2
County Engineer Greg Parker: Driveway Issue at 1194 James Avenue NE Shueyville......... 4
County Engineer Greg Parker: Consideration of a 28E Shared Road Maintenance Agreement with the City of Swisher........................................................................................................................... 8
County Engineer Greg Parker: Quotes Received for the Pavement Marking Program (Various Roads) 9
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: Vision Care Coverage Effective January 1, 2010 10
Recommendation of Provider – Eye Med Vision Care........................................... 10
County Engineer Greg Parker: Secondary Roads Department Progress Report from the County Engineer 11
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson: Plan for Meetings on Sutliff Bridge............................ 13
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Andy Johnson.......................................... 14
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors......................................................... 14
Reports and Inquiries from the Public................................................................................ 15
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 9:34 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
East Central Iowa Council of Governments Planner Gary Hughes said Johnson County has been awarded Federal funds from FEMA and also the Community Development Block Grant Program to assist with the buyout program for flood damaged properties. He said the FEMA money is for property demolition and the CDBG funds are for property acquisition. Because Federal funds are involved, it is required they follow an environmental review process. Hughes said this means records need to be prepared to make a determination whether the project would require preparation of a full-blown environmental impact statement. If it does not, they can request the release of funds and proceed with the acquisition of property.
Hughes provided handouts to the Board indicating there is no significant impact, in part due to the emergency situation and the declaration awarding these funds. He said to proceed with the release of funds it is necessary to publish a notice in the paper to give people an opportunity to comment on the project and the findings. Normally there is a required 15 day local review period and subsequent to that a 15 day State review period. Because of the situation, the State has approved a concurrent notice that combines the two 15 day notices into a single 15 day period. He said the intent is to have the Board act formally on October 8, 2009 to approve the publication of the notice and also for the authorization of the Chairperson to sign various documents involved with the record.
Hughes said the documents involve the review determination which means a full assessment was necessary, the completed record makes the finding of no significant impact, the minority impact statement that is now required by the State, and finally the actual request for release of funds. He said with authorization on October 8, 2009 the publication will go into the paper on October 13, 2009, the end of the 15 day review period would be October 27, 2009, and on October 28, 2009 they could get the release of funds. That would allow for the property acquisitions to proceed, however, it is noted in the record that FEMA is responsible for the historic preservation review. Hughes said this is one component of the record that would normally be handled in a single action but because of the different Federal funding involved FEMA is taking on that responsibility. The actual property demolition could not proceed until FEMA gets clearance through the State Historic Preservation office.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said a lot of this has already been done and this is a follow-up to be finalized. He said Hughes guaranteed that this is the last step in the process and he supports the Boards approval. Hughes said he would leave the documents with Executive Assistant Andy Johnson for official signatures.
Dvorak said representatives from Lacina Meadows came to a Board meeting and had some concerns about traffic, such as agricultural equipment and other vehicles, going through their private road. He said it is creating problems and in once instance, 911 signs were knocked down by an agricultural piece of equipment. Dvorak said the Board directed his office to review the concern and come up with a recommendation. He said they discussed the concern and met with representatives from the homeowner’s association. The County ordinance states there cannot be a dead-end road or cul-de-sac over 1,000 feet in length. This particular road is 2,600 feet. Dvorak said as a temporary approach to this issue, his office recommends the Board considers a break-away gate be placed at the end of Lacina Drive, on the gravel side of the road. He said this would allow the Board time to revisit the idea of upgrading the County road so traffic can use the County road instead of running through a private drive.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore said it was discussed with the homeowner representatives that this would be a temporary stop-gap measure and it would be expected that the Board would discuss upgrading Osage, between Naples and Dane Road, to gravel. He said his department is supportive of the ordinance’s requirement to have two accesses for a subdivision that has a road of 1,000 feet or greater or ten or more lots. He said they do not want to get away from that and they expressed to the homeowner's association that the Board may not discuss this until they have their Five Year Road Plan discussion. Moore said if they Board decides to upgrade Osage, then the bump gate will go away. If the Board decides not to upgrade Osage, then the subdivision needs to come into compliance and they will either have to resubdivide the subdivision to create secondary access or reduce the length of the road. He said one way or another, they would have to come into compliance with the current subdivision regulations.
Stutsman thanked staff and homeowners for working out a compromise. She said everybody understands it is temporary relief until they can get some other issues resolved. She wants to be sure everyone understands the road is a private road and homeowners pay for all of the maintenance, construction, and repairs. She said that it really is not fair to the homeowners to have a private road be treated as a public road. Neuzil asked Dvorak and Moore if there is official action they want from the Board. Dvorak said they do not want the Board to take action because it may violate their zoning ordinance. They wanted to inform the Board of the issue and give them time to consider upgrading Osage. He said they are going to tell the subdivision to install the bump gate until a permanent resolution is found, unless the Board says no.
Sullivan said he is supportive of the ordinance and is glad Planning and Zoning is trying to find ways to work with the homeowners because he feels they have been put in a bad position. He asked what it would cost if the bump gate is used. Dvorak said the County is not assuming any cost. He said County Engineer Greg Parker’s recommendations are that if they allow this bump gate that it is not opening into the County right-of-way for liability reason. There are bump gates and stronger gates. They hope the bump gate is a deterrent because they still want emergency services to be able to access the area. It is more of a deterrent in appearance rather than a physical barrier. Sullivan said if they do run through it with a Sheriff’s vehicle, for example, it is not going to do any permanent damage to the vehicle. Dvorak said no, it is his understanding it is designed as a bump gate which is what a lot of farmers use. Sullivan asked what happens if the farmer currently using that road decides to drive through it. Moore said it is private property and the homeowners could call the Sheriff’s Department for trespassing. Sullivan said the message needs to get to the people causing the problem and it seems the only people being asked to change their behavior are County emergency services and the people who live there and pay for the road which does not seem quite fair. Stutsman said the homeowners have put up signs and they have called the Sheriff. She said the individuals are aware of the problems but are choosing to ignore them.
Moore said when his office last met with the homeowners they mentioned putting up some other signage along with the bump gate that might give a warning that the road is now blocked off. He said if people see it early enough and think it is a gate blocking the road, they will not test the gate to see if it is a bump gate. Sullivan asked if the homeowner’s association is responsible for the expenses of erecting and maintaining the gate. Moore said yes. Sullivan said he agrees the Level B road needs to be upgraded to a gravel road but what if they upgrade and people still choose to drive on the private road. He said maybe the County needs to focus on law enforcement.
Dvorak said they talked about other options with the homeowner’s but in order to change or add roads, they have to re-subdivide and that can cost thousands of dollars. He said they are hoping this solution will get the public to use the upgraded County road and keep them off of the private subdivision road. Sullivan said he is concerned it will still be a problem even if they spend the money to upgrade the road. Dvorak said the people using the private road are using the excuse they cannot get through on other roads. He said if they have a through road, that excuse is gone. Sullivan said it is unfortunate that a couple of people can make this such a hassle for the homeowners and make the Board have to deal with it.
Harney said it is more than just a couple of farmers. He said there are other drivers coming through there as well using it as a cut-across. He said this was an issue when the County approved the development. Now there are wetlands and a pond which is almost prohibitive of moving the road onto Osage unless they do some substantial redevelopment. Dvorak said they do not support permanent gates but they may have to look at that in two or three years if this continues. He said the fire departments he has talked with regarding gated communities do not seem to have a concern. Neuzil asked if members of the Board will allow this issue to move forward for further discussion during the Five Year Road Plan. The Board agreed.
Parker said they have been working with the driveway request at 1194 James Avenue NE for approximately 15 months. He said several years ago the State required that the County take over market routes through cities that have a population of less than 500 and Shueyville meets this criterion. The County is responsible for 120th Street and Curtis Bridge Road and receives $13,000 annually in Farm-to-Market Funds to maintain these roads. He said as part of that arrangement the City of Shueyville has requested the County take care of all access requirements and permits. His department manages driveway accesses to be sure they are in a safe location and meet the driveway access guidelines. This particular driveway was created as a field access many years ago. He said in conversations with Planning and Zoning staff it was determined that if those properties were ever to be upgraded, the field access would be removed because they now have access to James Avenue.
Parker said the resident who now owns that property began building a house and garage. He said he contacted Planning and Zoning and indicated they should not be giving a permit for that property until the driveway was removed. The property owner was sent correspondence to that effect and later requested to keep the driveway because he wanted two accesses. Parker said they agreed to allow the temporary field access until the house was built with the caveat that when the construction is completed, the property owner would remove the access. If he did not remove it, Parker would send his staff in to remove it at the owner’s expense
Parker said they worked with the resident as best they could but the resident really did not want to remove the driveway. He said they sent a final notice informing the resident that if he did not have the access removed by a specific date and a Secondary Roads crew was in the area, they would remove the access and the resident would have to pay the expenses. He said that operational activity took place and they sent the resident an invoice for payment.
Stutsman asked if the resident has refused to pay for the removal of the driveway. Parker said to-date he is not aware that the resident has paid the invoice. Neuzil asked the amount of the invoice. Parker said the invoice amount was $1,228.74. Sullivan asked if the resident thought $1,228.74 was too much, could he have found a private contractor to perform the work. Parker said his department does not know the cost to remove an access like this until it is actually completed but they did give the resident ample opportunity to remove the access at his own cost. Sullivan asked if the County would have prevented someone else from doing it. Parker said no. He said typically when they send notices to residents, the residents remove the access and if they cannot get it done in a specific time period, the County works with them the best they can.
Parker said this particular access was in an unsafe location because the road receives a lot of traffic. He said one of the caveats that came out of this was there are a couple of utility boxes there. They tried to work with South Slope Cooperative Communications in the removal of the driveway because they requested to have a deadhead access for those utility boxes to maintain utility function. He said they asked South Slope to shift the driveway because it really was not in front of the utility boxes and tried to work with them. However, South Slope did not have an interest in doing it so they had no choice but to remove it. Parker said shortly after that South Slope put in a deadhead access. This was a situation where they tried to work with people the best they could but it just did not work out.
Neuzil said he put this on the agenda because the Board wanted the resident to have the opportunity to state their case. Resident Bryan Reilly said they purchased two properties with the understanding they had an access. He said in their covenant it states their lots can have access from adjoining streets, which they already had. They purchased the property, applied for building permits, prepared a diagram of the property, and how their new home would sit on the property. These were all approved by the Shueyville and Johnson County Building Departments. Nothing was said about an access being removed so they continued to build their new home. Reilly said they received a notice from the building department indicating they have to apply for a permit to remove the access, which they had no intention of removing because the access is one of the reasons they purchased the property. He said they decided not to deal with the issue at that time because they had enough to deal with. He contacted Parker and asked if there was a way to resolve the issue.
Reilly said he suggested blockading the driveway and it was his understanding that as soon as construction was finished, he would blockade the driveway. He said they were not happy about that because they had spent a tremendous amount of money to have plans redrawn, his garage now faces a driveway that is no longer there, and they went to the expense of paving a driveway from the front of the lot to an additional out building. Reilly said they came to an understanding with Parker to blockade it and then as time went on the road was embargoed and they were set back several more months. They finally finished in late August 2008 with yard work.
Reilly said it was still his understanding that South Slope could blockade the access. He later received a letter stating the County changed their mind and they are no longer going to allow that and it had to be removed in a certain amount of time or the County would remove it for a stated amount of money, something like $250. Reilly said he had not planned to pay for the removal of a driveway that he had purchased and the reason he was told it had to be removed was that it was a prior commitment by the developer and it was a safety issue. Reilly said why it is safer to move it closer to the top of the hill is beyond his understanding. He said now the utility people have to pull in and back out onto the roadway where before they could pull in, turn around, and drive out.
Reilly said this has created a less-safe situation. He said to add insult to injury they moved the driveway up and as a further insult; they put a blockade on his property. He assumes it is his property and that he is paying taxes all the way to the roadway. He is aware that it is a utility easement but that entitles them to install utilities not fence posts or blockades without his permission. He said he needs answers as to why he is expected to pay for something that should have been taken care of prior to his purchase. They should have been informed of this. He would like to know where his property begins and ends and what are his responsibilities.
Neuzil said he is not sure Reilly will get all of those answers today but this is the first opportunity for the Board to have dialogue on the issue. He said normally these issues are handled within the departments but if the issue comes to a head, the Board is certainly willing to listen to the concerns. Stutsman asked what Reilly meant by taking care of prior to purchase. Reilly said if it was an agreement that the driveway be removed by the developer. He hasn’t seen anything with this type of agreement. The covenant they received when they purchased the property said they could have access from an adjoining property. Reilly said the only adjoining road is 120th Street.
Neuzil said there is a bill that is outstanding and Reilly is challenging that. He asked County Attorney Janet Lyness what the process would be for a citizen that wanted to challenge a bill. County Attorney Janet Lyness said they would have to go to small claims court to contest it. Neuzil said that is fairly normal protocol for a situation like this. Lyness said she hasn’t seen this situation arise before. She said it maybe something they could put on taxes. Parker thinks they could do small claims or attach it to the taxes. That is how he thought they would handle this. Neuzil said he wants Reilly to know what his rights are. It might be an issue of if Reilly should have had his access taken away from his piece of property or not.
Reilly said this is something that should have been disclosed to him by the County if it was an issue. Harney asked what the two properties he mentioned earlier were. Reilly said it was two lots that they purchased as one. Harney asked if both driveways were accessible to him at that time. Parker said there are three properties and one of them that extends beyond Reilly’s property. That was the garage that the field access was available to. When Reilly bought his two lots an individual’s access was cut off so they would then access James Avenue. Parker said the covenants address that owners are to have access to adjoining routes and James Avenue is where they would access, not 120th Street. Reilly said the covenant states an adjacent roadway. Parker said that would be James Avenue.
Neuzil said they have to determine if the property is all one piece or two separate pieces. Reilly said he is not disputing the access but instead the $1,228 bill for something that should have been taken care of prior to his purchase. Stutsman asked who should have taken care of the problem. Reilly said it would be the developer according to Parker. He said he and Parker had an agreement to blockade the driveway then Parker changed his mind. Stutsman said the County has a policy that does not allow blocked driveways. Reilly said that seems to not be true because it is now a blocked driveway. Parker said Reilly is referencing the access for the utility boxes. He said they installed a large driveway and the width of that allowed the resident to use that access and go around the utility boxes. Parker said a representative from South Slope called Parker to tell him the Reilly was using the driveway and said as part of the permit it is only to be used by him. Parker said Ditch installed 4X6 posts so the resident can not access this property through this driveway. He said this was not brought up by his departments. It is something that South Slope with complying with permits that he had received.
Neuzil asked if South Slope has the right to do that. Parker said South Slope was trying to comply with a permit that he had also signed and they had given to them which was that is was only to be used by the utility company. The posts that were installed are within the right-of-way. Sullivan said there are many driveways that go into something gated in the County so they do allow driveways to be blocked. Parker said private residents provide that function. Sullivan said South Slope could put up a gate if they wanted. Parker said if they were to install a gate on County right-of-way they would have to get a permit. If the gate was to be installed beyond the right-of-way line it would be different because it would be on private property. Harney asked if South Slope has an easement because it’s not necessarily their property. Parker said it is within the City of Shueyville right-of-way but it is somewhat the County’s responsibility because of the Code language that was changed. The access is within the right-of-way lines.
Dvorak said this plat was approved within the city limits of Shueyville and the County had no involvement in it. The issue came up when Parker started taking over the roads from the cities because of a State mandate. He believes that billing for the permits was shared with Reilly during the process. They notified the people who own the property to the north that they could not use the same driveway. Reilly said he didn’t recall any one from Shueyville or Johnson County meeting with him. Dvorak said Senior Building Inspector Rueben Arsate met within him. Reilly said he did after the purchase of the property, the permits were issued, and he had already started the construction. Dvorak said building permits as far as location of property and access points are not done by the Planning and Zoning Department. They issue building permits for the zone.
Harney asked if this house was allowed under Shueyville standards at the time. Dvorak said the city issues the permit. The County does the inspections and preliminary inspection of the plans. He said they have no jurisdiction over location and construction because Shueyville has a zoning ordinance. Dvorak said the subdivision was approved prior to the County taking over the roads and the driveway in question doesn’t show on a plat of civic subdivision. Marcella Reilly asked if the next step for them is to get a lawyer. Neuzil said he was trying to give them all their options. At this point the County has sent them a bill for work that hasn’t been paid. He said the bill is going to move forward. M. Reilly thought the Board could throw out the bill.
Neuzil said that is an option that the Board has. They could give direction to staff that they don’t agree with the recommendations. Reilly said the reason there was a vehicle in there was because they were removing the old driveway. M. Reilly said that has been an expense because they had to repair their yard. Neuzil asked if South Slope is aware of the expenses. M. Reilly said they called South Slope when it first came up because they knew they used that access. To their knowledge they called Parker to say they wanted it but it has been taken out. She said they had to pay for putting in a new one as well. Neuzil asked if the Board wanted to think about this and put it on an agenda for a later date. The Board agreed.
Parker said the 28E shared road maintenance agreement with the City of Swisher is a standard 28E maintenance agreement they have with several governmental entities in Johnson County. The agreement he sent to the Board has clearly laid out who will be responsible for what. He said it would be the recommendation of Secondary Roads to have the Board approve this agreement at the next formal meeting. Neuzil said they will add it to the next formal agenda
Parker said this is a standard operation activity that they have been doing for many years. They sent quotes to several entities and they received three back. Vogel Traffic Services out of Orange City, Iowa gave them a quote of $12 per gallon applied for the white and yellow road markings. KAM Line Highway Markings out of Gilbert, Iowa gave a quote for $12.09 per gallon. The third quote they received from L.L. Pelling Company Paint Division out of North Liberty, Iowa for $12.40 per gallon. Parker said the engineer’s estimate for just under $60,000. He thinks they can accomplish the list without exceeding that dollar amount. Parker said the recommendation from Secondary Roads would be to proceed with Vogel Traffic Services for $12 per gallon. Neuzil asked if the $12 per gallon would keep them under $60,000. Parker said yes. Sullivan said this is not an actual bid so they have some flexibility in their decision. The extra $0.40 for L.L. Pelling is only potentially $2,400 more cost or less service which isn’t a ton of money out of $60,000. He said it is hard for them to justify giving the business to Vogel out of Orange City when they could help a local firm.
Neuzil asked what that calculation would be for the extra $0.40. Sullivan said it would be $2,400 difference for the 6,000 gallons they will need. Parker said the gallons applied depend on how many miles of marking they do. They have been setting a budget for $60,000 or under. He thinks they are anticipating to use a little over 3,000 gallons. What they budget for depends on the bids that come in. Parker said it is always his recommendation to go with the low quote because it saves his department money. He understands it is the Board’s prerogative to award bids to local companies and he understands it is not a large amount of money considering the whole contract. Parker said when they sent out their quotes they asked for a per gallon cost because that determines how many miles they do. They budgeted $60,000 or under and the amounts there were hoping to get done would be a little over 3,000 gallons. Neuzil said it would be about an additional $1,720.
Stutsman said the Secondary Roads budget is very tight and he is doing the responsible thing as department head by bring them the lowest quote. She also understands using a local provider. Sullivan thinks that this job would keep a person employed at L.L. Pelling. Harney said they adopted a policy of buy locally. Sullivan said that gave them the option to do that but didn’t require them to do it. Neuzil said the number is close enough to where they could consider using a local business. Sullivan said this is about a 3% difference. Harney said it they start going away from the low quotes they are taking away the option for someone to bid to make it competitive. Parker said if they don’t take the low quote from companies that offer low quotes, those companies may not bid.
Sullivan said they have a policy they passed that talks about 5% that they could refer them to. Parker said he would send the Board an email for the amount of gallons they were going to put down and give the differential between the three bidders. Then next week the Board could vote on how they would want to proceed. Lyness said she calculated the number and for the L.L. Pelling bid they could do 4,838 gallons and for the Vogel bid they could do 5,000 gallons. It was about a 3.33% difference.
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek said last year they worked on securing a vision care coverage benefit with their PPME units which are Secondary Roads, the Sheriff’s Office, and Administration. That benefit was $6.60 a month for an employee contribution. At the time of negotiations they talked about using several companies. Shramek said in an apple to apples comparison between the companies Eye Med would be the clear choice. It offers an annual eye care exam with a $10 copay. She said they can receive lenses, frames, or materials with a $25 copay. Frames would be covered every two years and lenses would be covered every year. Shramek said with the unit they would have 173 enrollees so they have been given a discount based on that number. The quote is for $4.16 a month for an employee. For employees electing family coverage it would be $10.60. She said after the employer contribution there would be no charge to single employees and $4.00 a month for families’ pre tax. Neuzil asked if she was recommending Eye Med Vision care. Shramek said yes.
Stutsman referenced a list of provides and asked if those were the only ones employees could go to for eye exams. Shramek said those would be in the PPO network. They could go outside but the benefits would be less. Shramek said there are 22 providers in the Johnson and Linn County area. Sullivan asked if she discussed with Eye Med Vision Care that if they were able to bring a certain number of people they would look at additional providers in the network. Shramek did not discuss that but if they had 500 employees they could get an additional price break taking it into the $3.00 range. She said none of the companies are local. Stutsman said they would have to decide if they are going to offer this to non-bargaining employees which they usually do. Sullivan said specifically the Administration Unity is the one they follow. Shramek said that is correct. Neuzil asked if that would take place January 1, 2010. Shramek said yes and they would need everything ready by November 20, 2009.
Shramek said the additional cost for non-bargaining would be $8,586 annually. Neuzil asked what that money would come from. Shramek said it they would come from the Health Care Fund which is fund 193. She said it is important to note that Eye Med Vision Care is the only company that would guarantee the rates for four years but it is not a contract. She said they have a 99% retention rate. Harney said this is just for the cost of glasses and not for other eye care issues like cataracts. Shramek said cataracts would be considered a disease and be under the health care coverage. Neuzil said they will put this on the next formal agenda.
Parker said he would be reviewing the construction project update for the activities of the summer, future projects, maintenance updates, and other updates. He incorporated pictures for projects from the Five Year Road Plan. He showed a picture from Derby Avenue and 120th Street which was a vision enhancement project. On Highway 965 they added a considerable amount of pavement. They are still doing a little bit of shoulder work and add pavement markings. Parker said on Oak Crest Hill Road they did a pavement rehab project. Parker said traffic is only open one way currently and they are hoping to pave on October 1, 2009 from Hills to the north end of the project. Stutsman asked how long that would take. Parker said they are thinking about five days.
Parker said they are also doing a project on Black Diamond Bridge Road. That project is currently closed to traffic. He said they have installed the beams. They are hoping to put the steal in and set the work for the deck in the next few days. Parker said it would probably take a day or two to set the steal and another day to pour the deck then they can do the approaches. They are hoping to get this done before winter. Parker said they are trying to be creative with function and activity for this project. He said they are seeing a construction cost increase of 20% to 30% annually. Their construction budget has held local at $1.5 million for many years. Parker said that want to do something similar to what they did on Kitty Lee Road. There they seal coated it to protect the surface for now and then they will come back in a few years. The cost differential from the overlay would be anywhere from $800,000 to $900,000 and if they did a double seal coat it would be $60,000 to $70,000. Parker said they are trying to stretch their construction budget as much as possible to get other projects done that are a higher need. Since there are high traffic levels on this road this is something they would like the Board to consider. Neuzil asked how long that would last. Parker said it depends on the amount and type of traffic. This type of surface should last five to seven years before they have to go reseal it. He said at that point they could consider paving it when they have more funds available.
Parker said on the Dubuque Street Trail the contractor has grubbed up the trail and has removed some trees. They are hopeful to have that done before snow comes. He said Oak Crest Hill Road South is in the bid letting for October. There is a bridge on that so there is a possibility that will be going on at the same time as the paving operation. Parker said they have had some issues getting environmental clearance approval for Oakdale Boulevard which has extended the bid letting date to January. The DNR has many projects to review currently and even if a County project is higher on the list for review but another project has funding issues they get moved to the top of the list. Parker said this it outside his staff and Coralville staff's control.
Parker said they are planning on an October bid letting for Highway 965 and 120th Street. Cedar Rapids is working with Executive Assistant Andy Johnson and the County Attorney’s Office on the final language. Parker said the Cosgrove Road Bridge still needs to have three belly cross sections for the project but because of the high water levels, staffing activities, and other projects that hasn’t been done yet. Now that Highway 965 is freed up he is going to get the cross sections shot and get them to an engineer to do a TSO. Parker said since this is on Old Man’s Creek they might have some issues with environmental issues.
Parker said they had some alignment issues for the Sharon Center Road Bridge. They decided to close the bridge and put it back in the existing alignment. This is also on Old Man’s Creek and has been delayed for a year because of delays in getting environmental clearance. They are hopeful for a spring bid letting but the dynamic functions of the permitting project may delay that. Parker said they did a safety study with the DOT for 540th Street and Highway One. The DOT has given them clearance to proceed with the project and are not going to make any changes to the intersection. They are looking for a spring bid letting for this project and hope to get the construction done next year. Parker said there is an agreement with Cedar County to replace a reinforced concrete box which will have a spring construction date.
Parker said they accomplished a maintenance job on Linder Road. It took staff about a week and they were waiting on utilities to be moved. He heard that the road is now open. Parker said the Board requested that he take them on a road tour. He would like to show them these projects. Parker said fall mulling is in preparation right now and they are getting ready for winter. Level B roads are being bladed for fall harvest. He said the cracked seal program and chip seal program have been completed. Pavement markings will be approved by the Board next week so they will be able to get that done before the snow comes. Parker said they finished covert ditch cleaning and they may have a few finishing things they will be doing. He said all spraying operations from the road side vegetation groups have been completed. There are still some permanent seeding projects they will be doing including on existing projects. Parker said the Oxford shed and cell dome have been completed and working fantastic.
Parker said they have revised the Snow and Ice Policy and it is in the final review at staff. They will have something to present to the Board soon. Sullivan asked how many people bought in to the new chip seal program. Parker said it was less than half a dozen. He thought it would be higher than that but with the economy it was lower because it is an expensive option. Stutsman said some people were waiting to see how the initial ones went before they committed. Stutsman asked if they are going to blade all the Level B roads or just as it is requested. Parker said the ones that are requested by agricultural purpose are a top priority.
Parker said the annual report has been submitted to the Iowa Department of Transportation for their review. They had one budget amendment submitted that will come forward for the Board’s consideration. He said they are working on the 2011 budget. The current budget is on target and they are typically within 1% of how they expended the first couple months. He said after the two or three months they run between 7% and 9% so they are on target. Parker said construction costs will be higher because of the funds they had received and there is a large match for those projects. He thinks the construction costs will be very high over the next few years because they are doing more projects than they would ever do on an annul basis. Sullivan wanted Parker to think about looking into companies that offer winter weather insurance so Secondary Roads could budget a premium. That premium would cover things like over-time and material expenses. Parker said this has been something that has been around for a while. He hasn’t done enough research and it would be something to look out. He isn’t aware of anyone in Iowa that is utilizing that.
Parker said Farm-to-Market Funds are frozen through the end of this year. Because of the ERA projects they have happening currently and all other projects going on they are considerably dipping into that fund source for Johnson County. He said some of those are for projects that will be coming in next year. Parker isn’t sure what the DOT is going to do because Johnson County is not the only county that is going into the hole with those. He said they will probably be looking at a $5 million deficit in their Farm-to-Market funds. They get funds back every quarter and the Farm-to-Market projections are not as high as they have been in the past. Parker said construction costs are rising 10% to 20% annually. The revenues are looking stagnant if not anything above minimal growth which will impact future construction programs. He said if the current budget cycle continues the way it has in the past five to 10 years they will have to look at a reduction of level of service or less construction projects.
Parker said they have received a JCCOG Enhancement Grant and ECICOG Enhancement Grant. They have also received STP funds through JCCOG and ECICOG. He said it has been a banner year for 28E agreements. Parker thanked the County Attorney’s Office for all of their help. They have done 28E agreements with Hills, Iowa City, IDNR, Cedar Rapids, Cedar County and one is coming with Swisher. Parker said they are now fully staffed. They are seeking a site for a Swisher and Solon shed replacement and that is a budgetary issue. Parker said he would like to schedule a road tour for the Board. He said staff has been fantastic and department morale is great. Neuzil said they will need to help the Board to get an understanding of his budget and the kind of requests they want to make for the upcoming Five Year Road Plan discussion, especially the impact if State and Federal dollars are stagnant.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson County said they have scheduled a meeting with FEMA representatives for 9:00 a.m. on October 8, 2009. There are at least eight people from FEMA, Homeland Security, and the State Historic Preservation Office that will be attending. He notified Congressman Loessack’s Office and the Governor’s Office since they issued press releases regarding the funding commitment. If there gets to be too many people he thinks they may ask for designated representatives from each agency. Johnson said the Board also talked about having a meeting for public input on October 19, 2009 and maybe working with VJ Engineering to plan that. That would be an opportunity to have various options presented and public input could be received. He said there would be costs to that which would not be covered by FEMA. Johnson wanted to get some input about the possibility of waiting until the meeting scheduled for October 8, 2009 before they determine what format. Then they will know what FEMA will commit to and what their options are from that standpoint.
Neuzil said VJ Engineering would put those pieces of information together once without a cost and twice with a cost. He thinks they should do that on October 8, 2009 so they would have that information. Johnson said they have presented their report and the feasibility study which they can present again. He thinks they would plan a meeting where models and upgraded pictures could be presented as well as direct the meeting. Johnson thinks these are steps that are going beyond the study that they could do for the public input meeting and he doesn’t think they would do for October 8, 2009. Sullivan said they need an opportunity to receive public input but he is not interested in spending the money to have them do it.
Neuzil said if they have the pictures they could put an agenda item on for the night meeting on October 14, 2009 that would allow for the community to give input. Johnson said they could still have a meeting on October 19, 2009 that the Board would plan and they could use those pictures without VJ Engineering. Sullivan said that is something he would want to do. Johnson said VJ Engineering might be present for that meeting. It would be whether or not they would prepare materials in addition to what they have already prepared. Neuzil said they were given indication that they were willing to prepare additional pictures and did not indicate any additional cost. He assumes they could get that information on October 8, 2009 so everyone at the meeting could look at those. Johnson said he would continue to work on the meeting for October 19, 2009.
Johnson said on either the formal or informal meeting agenda for next week there will be a resolution designating him as the contact person for the Federal and State funds on the buyout as they have done on other FEMA related items. He said Dvorak has been working with ECICOG but they needed to change since they are getting into the financial part of that. Johnson said the Johnson County/Linn County Public Leadership Group will be meeting on October 1, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. in North Liberty. On October 7, 2009 there is a Department Head Evaluation at 9:00 a.m., a site visit to Conservation, and the Criminal Justice Center Coordinating Committee meets at 4:30 p.m. On October 8, 2009 there is a meeting with FEMA at 9:00 a.m., there is a canvas of votes scheduled for 1:00 p.m., and a 5:30 p.m. Board Meeting.
Harney attended a Joint Communications Policy Board meeting.
Stutsman attended a Targeted Case Management Advisory Board meeting.
Sullivan said has been contacted by the public about the vacancy on the Board and referred the member of the public to the Auditor’s Office website.
Eugene Chick Meade requested the Board consider adding an item to a future agenda for abating taxes for business for the duration they were closed due to the flood.
Adjourned at 11:22 a.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary