MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
APRIL 21, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Farmer’s All Natural Creamery Owner Robert Adams: Request for Driveway Access at 1010 540th Street SW 1
Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne: FY 2011 Spring Budget Amendment.................................. 5
Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell: Plan for Sale of 1105 South Gilbert Court (Former Public Health Building Location)........................................................................................................................ 11
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Andy Johnson................................................. 12
Board of Supervisors: Sheriff’s Contract for the Provision of Law Enforcement Services to the Town of Lone Tree Commencing July 1, 2011 for $35.00 Per Hour, for a Total of up to $47,320.00 Per Year.... 12
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors............................................................... 12
Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:12 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Harney said there is a request for a variation from requirement of a 500-foot driveway separation. Neuzil said he thinks most of the Board members went to the site and discovered there is a bigger hill there than what was thought. County Engineer Greg Parker agreed. Harney said that does not show up on a photograph. Parker said he went to the site on April 20, 2011, with Assistant Maintenance Superintendent Kevin Braddock. He displayed a photo of the site on the digital display and said it is a view to the south. He pointed out a truck backed up to the Farmer’s All Natural Creamery facility. On the other side of that truck are a couple of other semi trailers sitting in the parking lot. Certainly, there are constraints and there is limited room to move around. He pointed out a vehicle in the picture that is parked the wrong way on the edge of the road, which should not be there. Parker said the Iowa Code prohibits parking the wrong way on the wrong side of the road.
Parker said it was fortunate he took this photograph at the same time. He pointed out a car in the photograph coming over the hill. He knows the applicant has requested an additional access north of this point. He pointed out the location on the photo and said the additional access would probably be between the no passing zone and the tank. After looking at it, the County’s 500-feet separation rule between the accesses would probably not be convenient because it does get into the woods and there is a stream there. The location the applicant is requesting is 500 feet north of the intersection. The guidelines for separation between driveways are not completely met, but the guidelines for separation between the intersection and the proposed access are met. Parker pointed to the area on the photograph.
Parker said at the last meeting the applicant requested to use the additional access to store vehicles off of the road, which is a good thing. At the last meeting the applicant revealed he was going to build a circle drive of some sort for the semis to pull out of that access and head back into the same access where the truck is parked on the edge of the road, (again Parker pointed to the area on the photograph.) Then, the trucks would pull back onto the road and enter on that same existing driveway. He does have safety concerns with semi trucks because they are slow-moving and long vehicles. If there is a semi pulling out where the truck in the photo is parked, they probably will be unable to see a car coming over the hill.
Parker said the separation distance is important so that people have plenty of time to see oncoming traffic. This is a difficult situation for the applicant because there is limited space around the building. Secondary Roads staff has evaluated the situation and thinks owner Robert Adams' request is the best option, even though Parker does have concerns with vehicles pulling back onto the road and then slowing down and turning back in.
Parker said he recommends continuing to work with the applicant on a plan to keep the trucks on the property. He knows there is a drop in elevation there. However, Braddock, who has worked up the ranks in Secondary Roads having begun as a truck driver, said it is doable. There will be an added expense the applicant will pay for the driveway, but the applicant will have to build a circle driveway for the semis anyway. He thinks that is what Adams is proposing.
Parker said there also is another issue, that of a septic system on the site, which may inhibit the ability for the trucks to pull into that area. If the driveway comes along that frontage of the property, that would be the preferred route. The route could be build up and the trucks would be able to drive on it without issue. Harney said that was his thought before seeing the property. He said when he visited the site there was a semi facing north toward the bridge. He said they have to improve the situation, but he doubts they will ever resolve it with the way the building is situated on the lot. Parker agreed. He said they do not know what will happen in the future and this is what they are dealing with now. He asked the applicant to strongly consider the possibility of keeping the traffic on his property instead of pulling back onto a County road. If that were the case, Parker thinks they would want to accommodate the applicant's request for a new driveway north of the intersection.
Sullivan said it is not evident from the photograph, but it is very steep up to the building and he does not think a semi could ever climb that grade. He said a lot of fill could be brought in, but the amount of fill necessary to reduce the grade of the slope would almost take out the entire empty lot. He does not know what can be done.
Harney said Adams told him that the area where the building sits was actually the hill on the other side and fill was moved in to accommodate building the facility. It did create quite a drop off.
Stutsman asked if there is any possibility of changing the placement of the stop sign from east-west to north-south. She knows habits are hard to break. Parker said that can certainly be done, but habits are very difficult to break. He thinks they would want to ask the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) to conduct an analysis on the intersection to see if that would be a worthwhile option or proposal. Neuzil said he thinks it is a worthwhile option. He thinks it should be a four-way stop. Sullivan agreed. Rettig said that is what she proposed. She said Adams said he understands why Rettig thinks it should be a four-way stop, but that would be very difficult to enforce in the winter. She said Adams said that when vehicles come up over the hill from the south, the ability to stop there might be lessened because of the grade of the hill and one’s ability to stop at the foot of it. Parker said those people that drive that route every day will be familiar with it. He said preparatory signs can be installed to warn of the coming stop sign.
Sullivan said a "Stop Ahead" sign would have to be installed. Neuzil agreed. Rettig said she is not opposed to, separate from this request, looking at a stop sign study to investigate that. Rettig said Adams told her that they are barely hanging on as it is, and if vehicles have to stop at the bottom of the hill they will slide right through the intersection. She thinks a sight study could show Secondary Roads and the Board whether that is feasible. Sullivan agreed that a study of that intersection makes sense. Neuzil said especially with the potential for a large amount of business. Parker said in the past the MPOJC has requested that the elected officials make the request for an analysis on the intersection and Parker said he thinks this conversation is sufficient.
Rettig said the 500-feet separation distance would place the access in the middle of the trees and creek. She thinks this separation distance actually makes the area less safe because of where it sits on the north hill. The proposed access at the tree line does not make this site safe. She does not think anybody thinks that. With the level of business and the number of semis and tankers coming in and out of the facility, being able to store some of that traffic down below makes a lot of sense to Rettig. She thinks that is the best situation out of a lot of bad ones.
Sullivan said when he was driving south on the road and coming down that hill where the 500-feet separation was, he could not see it as he was coming up over the crest of the hill. He could see the location of the proposed driveway because of the nature of the topography. There are a lot of problems with this location.
Parker said of all of the assessments Secondary Roads has discussed and analyzed, based on the applicant’s recommendation, the driveway location just to the south line of the trees will meet the 500-feet separation distance from the intersection. Sight distance south of there is not that great. They will have to deal with the facility the way it is and changing it would be cost-prohibitive.
Sullivan said in the short time he and Rettig were at the site, four semis came and went and one pretty confused driver, not including himself, who was trying to find a place to park. He thinks this proposal will alleviate some of the confusion. He is sure the worst thing is when a truck just stops in the middle of the road because they have no idea what they are supposed to do. He thinks that is the thing that is going to cause the most problems with the traffic compared to anything else. If Adams is committed to letting every trucker know to proceed directly to a specified lot, line up, and as soon as it is clear, pull on in, they will probably only have one truck at a time. That will probably improve the safety factor.
Harney said, when drivers try to enter the driveway now, they must go on the wrong side of the road, turn around, and come back in if they are going to the north. Parker said the southbound trucks on that location would certainly be able to pull into the lot easier and back up to the building. From a logistics standpoint, that is a positive. The only concern Parker has is in having multiple vehicles pulling in and out within a short distance when the vehicles move slowly, are long in length, and there is a hill. Sullivan said there is not a good answer to this problem. Stutsman and Parker agreed. Stutsman said she is OK with the suggested driveway access and asking MPOJC to complete a study of that intersection. Rettig agreed. Parker said he can request that as soon as the meeting is over. Stutsman asked if Parker would prefer the Board makes that request. Parker said he can check with MPOJC Executive Director John Yapp to see if official Board action is necessary. He thinks that in the past, this has been requested informally.
Rettig asked Parker if he has spoken to the Iowa County Engineer about this intersection. Parker said no. Rettig said it makes sense to let the Iowa County Engineer know that Johnson County is going to request a review of this intersection.
Harney said this is typical of the Twin County Dairy which is also close to the highway too. The highway moved close to Twin County Dairy rather than it being built close to the highway.
Adams said the idea of doing the wraparound and keeping the trucks on the property is a wonderful idea. However, the problem is that would also be used as an exit driveway and vehicles would be aiming south to exit, so they could not see north. It would be a very dangerous thing. Presently, the time it takes a truck to come through the intersection, pull in, and then do the turnaround, the semi would actually be on the road a lot longer than if the truck were down below at that driveway, pulls out, and then pulls back in, because the driver is looking at the dangerous traffic, which is what is heading north. It seems that the lower driveway is the ultimate solution for the greatest amount of safety. Rettig said the County’s Geographic Information System is absolutely wonderful. She said Executive Assistant Andy Johnson had the topography displayed, but until one visits the site in-person, they do not understand the dangers. This seems like the best of a not very good situation.
Harney said when he was out there, there was a car parked in the ditch close to that intersection. That was a real hazard because if someone were to run off the road, that car would be the first thing that would be hit. Adams agreed.
Sullivan said the Board does not need to take any action and Parker is just going to do the permitting. Parker agreed. Harney asked Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell if the Board has to take any official action. Chappell said the Board does not have to. He is under the impression the Board had decided to start doing that for its own record keeping purposes, but there has never been any requirement that the Board do anything official on something like this. Harney said he would like the Board to be consistent, because the Board did take official action on Sand Road. Stutsman agreed. Johnson said he thinks with the Sand Road action, there was an official motion the next week just so there was an official record of it. Sullivan said the Board can do that on April 28, 2011. He asked if the Board is OK with that. Harney said he thinks there is consensus to put this item on the agenda for the Formal Meeting scheduled for April 28, 2011, for approval. He said they will discuss stop signs at a future time.
Parker said he does not know MPOJC’s timeframe to complete the study. He is sure MPOJC has a lot of commitments so all he can do is ask and see when the study can be completed.
Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne said today is the informal discussion about the budget amendment. The public hearing is scheduled for April 28, 2011, and the Board is scheduled to vote on the budget amendment on May 5, 2011.
Claiborne said the first set is the total merit for the County. In the future, merit will be included in the budget rather than amended in. This is because money is set aside in the General Basic Fund, but Mental Health Disability Services and Secondary Roads have their own separate funds. It has never really made sense, but it has always been done that way, so now is a good time to fix that.
Claiborne said the next set is the Public Health program changes. The expenses are exactly the same as the revenues; it is budget neutral. The County Attorney’s Office is moving some expenses from one service area to another, it is also budget neutral. The Auditor’s Office has a personnel expense request for an increase of $18,233. Two temporary deputy auditors were hired to cover for the absence of an ill deputy. Also, the cost of living adjustments (COLA) were not included in the FY11 budget.
Claiborne said the next set of data is SEATS. When he spoke with SEATS Director Tom Brase in February, Brase thought he would only need $10,000 to keep on track with part-time no-benefit driver wages. However, that has been increased to $40,000, which is due to route expansions.
Claiborne said Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia is transferring funds and adjusting grants and this is budget neutral.
The Board had approved a maximum transfer for FY11 from General Basic to Secondary Roads. A midway point was done, rather than the minimum transfer from Rural Basic to Secondary Roads Funds. He said those funds need to be appropriated for the rock program.
Claiborne said an appropriation from Secondary Roads was made to Capital Projects for the flood buyouts and now that money is being returned to Secondary Roads, which is needed for the spring upkeep and maintenance.
Capital Projects has increased expenses, which are $400,000 for more flood buyouts. Revenue of $975,000 will also be recognized for the Armory project. Additional revenue for Capital Projects is $400,000 for flood buyouts, so that is budget neutral. The County loaned money to the Conservation Bond Fund. County Treasurer Tom Kriz did get the bonding and now it is time to repay that loan to Capital Projects. A transfer of the loan payment from the Conservation Bond Fund to Capital Projects is included in this budget amendment.
Claiborne said Capital Expenditures include Sutliff Bridge expenses of $120,000. That is budget neutral because there is off-setting revenue of exactly the same amount. The Administration Building window grant will have revenues of $234,900.
Claiborne said the $1 million revenues from the Conservation Bond sale need to be moved to the Conservation Bond Fund. The Conservation Bond Fund will be charged $11,324 for the bonding expenses. The repayment to Capital Projects is transferred out from the Conservation Bond Fund. The Conservation Bond revenue was originally received into the Central Services budget and now that revenue will be reduced from Central Services and it will be recognized in the Conservation Bond Fund.
Claiborne said total expenditures are $2,636,338, and total revenues are $2,330,882, for a net effect cost of $305,456.00. Harney noted the Armory project funds are reimbursements from the government for the 2008 flood. He said it is the same way with Sutliff Bridge. That was funding returned from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Rettig said she has some questions about the Auditor’s Office request of $18,233. She said Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne gave the Board a monthly budget report at the end of March 2011. When she looked at that monthly budget report, she thought the Auditor’s Office budget seemed to be in line with where they should be at that moment, so she had asked Claiborne to print out a new report. She is slightly confused about this request because it appears there is plenty of room in this budget to absorb these expenses, including $37,000 remaining in part-time non-benefit wages. She asked if Claiborne could give her any additional information about why there would be a need to add $18,233.
Claiborne said he really does not have an answer. He said there are representatives from the Auditor’s Office present at the meeting because Claiborne asked them to come to the meeting. He said County Auditor Tom Slockett is away at a business meeting and he is hoping Slockett and Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards can attend the Public Hearing on April 28, 2011. He said maybe Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler could speak about that.
Harney asked if Kistler is prepared to speak today. Kistler said not really. He said he is not the deputy in charge of personnel. Edwards is currently on vacation and Slockett is gone from the Auditor’s Office today. He said Deputy Auditor Amanda Stahle is present and together they will try to answer the Board’s questions. He thinks Edwards can review this matter in more detail with anyone who has questions on April 25, 2011.
Kistler said the budget amendment is to put money back in the budget that the Board had approved for a cost of living adjustment (COLA) of 2.7% for the bargaining unit employees and 1.4% for the deputies and Auditor. That money was left out of the budget, so the Auditor’s Office does not have full funding for personnel expenses which are 86% of the budget. The Auditor’s Office is in line to finish the year, though a couple of temporary deputies were hired to help get through a period of time when one deputy was ill.
Kistler said the Auditor’s Office has made up for those expenses by leaving that deputy’s position open since December 2010. However, with the current Auditor’s Office budget, they would not be able to hire one of the people interviewed for the Deputy Auditor position for the remainder of the year. In addition, three part-time recording secretaries who produce the Board of Supervisors' minutes will be graduating and therefore leaving their employment. The Auditor’s Office wants to hire replacement staff as soon as possible to allow for some overlap with the current employees who will provide training for the new employees.
Kistler said if the error is not corrected and the Auditor’s Office does not receive the funding they were expecting in the approved budget, they will be unable to fill the Deputy Auditor position. Auditor's Office staff, deputies, and Slockett himself will have to continue to work more overtime. Additionally, the Auditor’s Office will have the expense of re-advertising for the open position at the start of the next fiscal year.
Neuzil said the Auditor’s note states that the Auditor’s Office’s current expenditure status is right where it should be according to straight lined estimates. Kistler said the Auditor’s Office is short one full-time Deputy Auditor position. The Auditor’s Office could finish the year if they did not hire that position, but that is putting the office in a bind.
Rettig said she thinks there is plenty of room in other budget lines to make up that difference without having more spending authority. Kistler said 88% of the Auditor’s Office full-time staff budget line is spent. Rettig said 47% of the budget line for part-time non-benefit employees is remaining. Neuzil said there is going to be some overlap. Kistler said that is 53% of a $70,000 line item and the salaries and full-time wages are $241,436. In real dollar terms, it is not enough to cover a Deputy position for the remainder of the year.
Sullivan said he knows Kistler is being put on the spot, having only been given five minutes notice to appear at the meeting and was not able to prepare for these questions. He said the Board would appreciate if Kistler would take the Board’s concerns back to Slockett. He said the salary for the Deputy who ended up leaving should have been included in the budget for the whole year. The way it looks, the budget would not have covered the expenses this year, because the Auditor’s Office could not have anticipated a deputy being absent for several months. In other words, the budget was underestimated from the start.
Kistler said a temporary deputy was hired that basically offset the hours of when the full-time deputy was gone. Sullivan said if that is a wash, then the budget was either overspent or underestimated. Kistler said the budget was underestimated by the fact that the Auditor’s Office COLAs were not put in for any of the employees. The Auditor’s Office has been eating into money that is simply not there, because it was never budgeted. Therefore, they cannot hire someone to fill the Deputy Auditor position. The Auditor’s Office budget is where it should be, but they cannot fill that position because they have been spending money they do not have.
Neuzil asked Kistler to take some of these concerns to Slockett and extrapolate what the Auditor’s Office thinks it will spend on the part-time wages and play that out. Kistler said the part-time wages budget may be at 53% of $70,000, but 88% of the $436,000 budgeted for full-time employees is already spent because they have been working overtime. Kistler said proof is in the math; those dollars do not offset each other.
Rettig said the point is departments are supposed to establish a budget and follow it. Kistler said yes, but the Auditor’s Office budget did not include COLA. Sullivan said he thinks part of the issue might be the overtime. The Board obviously did not budget for any overtime. When a department has more work than they have people, the choices are to pay overtime or something else has to give. Kistler said the Auditor’s Office does not hire as many part-time hours if the full-time staff is working additional overtime. The Auditor’s Office has already made that adjustment.
Sullivan said he thinks the Board needs to have a discussion with the Auditor’s Office about the overtime, and the Boards' and Slockett’s expectations. Neuzil agreed. He said he can do the math and can certainly see that the Auditor’s Office did not get their job done in incorporating the COLA in the first place. All he is asking is for the Auditor’s Office to show the Board there is no chance they can cut on any line item to avoid this budget amendment.
Kistler said the only cut the Auditor’s Office can make is to not hire the Deputy Auditor position and to not hire the replacement part-time recording secretaries. Neuzil asked if there is not one dollar in any line item. Kistler said the Auditor’s Office budget is 86% personnel, so basically the only cuts that can be made are to personnel. Stahle said 96% of the Auditor's Office budget is personnel. Kistler said he made a mistake in saying personnel comprises 86% of the Auditor’s Office budget. In actuality, 96% of the Auditor’s Office budget is personnel. Rettig said she can go through what remains in the Auditor’s Office budget today and can find at least $18,000 four times over. She said the Minor MV Parts and Accessories line item has $28,000 remaining. She is skeptical of budget amendments when nothing unusual happened. She thinks these were predictable changes.
Sullivan said the Board is clearly going to need to follow up with Slockett. Stutsman agreed. Kistler said OK. Harney thanked Kistler. Neuzil said he thinks he can find $1 in the Auditor’s Office budget. Harney said the Board will wait and see what information Slockett can provide to the Board.
Sullivan said he does not wish to put anyone from the Public Health Department on the spot if they cannot answer. He said when looking at the Public Health merit pay increases in the proposed budget amendment, those stand out in terms of size relative to the other County departments, including those departments that are similar in size or larger. He asked if that is particularly high for some reason. Public Health Director Doug Beardsley said those increases were calculated by Human Resources (HR). Comparing the merit scores from past years, there really has not been a dramatic change. He asked if the amendment includes some of the COLA. He thinks that is just merit, because those are the numbers that HR calculated. Rettig asked Beardsley how many non-bargaining members are employed in Public Health. Beardsley said Public Health’s only bargaining unit members are clerical staff. Deputy Public Health Director Tricia Kitzmann said Public Health has about 45 total employees and only 15 employees are union employees and the rest are non bargaining members.
Stutsman said compared to many other departments, Public Health probably has more merit-eligible positions. Beardsley said that is possible. Sullivan said for example, even though Secondary Roads has more employees than Public Health, most of those individuals are in the union. He said the merit pay increases number stood out as higher than other departments and he just wanted to know if it was an anomaly. Beardsley said it is not due to merit scores. Sullivan asked if Beardsley knows how the numbers compare to 2010. Beardsley said no. Rettig and Sullivan asked Beardsley if he could obtain that information for them. Claiborne said he can find that information.
Rettig said this is the second year Claiborne has sent an email on behalf of the Board informing department heads not to present budget amendments. The email stated that the Board expects department heads to hold the line. Although it appears there are many requests in this budget amendment, most of them are predictable.
Rettig said SEATS has a request for a $40,000 increase to its budget. She said for reasons unknown, SEATS ridership is skyrocketing. She is glad SEATS' services are being used. The increase is unpredictable because in 2010, the SEATS budget was actually under budget and they were able to loan money to another department. While it is unfortunate there is a budget amendment, it is actually for a fairly decent reason.
Stutsman said that is what a budget amendment is for. Budget projections are prepared 18 months in advance and once in a while there are unforeseen expenses. She thinks Brase can attribute the increased ridership to the fact that more phone lines were installed and therefore more people have been able to schedule rides. Sullivan said February and March 2011 are the two busiest months SEATS has ever had, so there is definitely a change in the trend. Stutsman agreed. Harney said when ridership increases, that drives up the cost of fuel, driver salaries, and maintenance and all that adds up quickly.
Sullivan said Claiborne has done good work on the budget. Claiborne thanked Sullivan and said the Public Hearing is scheduled for next week. Rettig said the Public Hearing on the budget amendment is scheduled for the full list of requests. She asked if she has the option to vote against one request and in favor of the others. Claiborne said yes, that was done last year. Rettig asked if last year the requests were removed from the amendment at the Informal session or after the Public Hearing. Claiborne said the Public Hearing is scheduled for April 28, 2011, and the Board is scheduled to vote on the budget amendment on May 5, 2011. Sullivan said a budget amendment request could be pulled out of the amendment after the Public Hearing and before the vote.
Chappell said he is skeptical, but he has never addressed this question. If it came up in 2010, perhaps County Attorney Janet Lyness may have addressed it. Chappell said he does not know the details in the Public Hearing notice sent to the newspaper. He also wonders how the voting occurred last year and if the Board passed separate resolutions. Chappell said he would want to look into those things.
Rettig said she voted against the budget amendment in 2010 because of the Public Health request. She said Public Health staff said they were not going to spend that money but needed it to balance their budget. She said she was told that if the Board was going to vote against one budget amendment request they would have to vote against them all, which would cause a delay in approving the requests from other departments. She is skeptical of the Auditor’s Office budget amendment request. She would like to consider that item separately, so she will not be forced to vote against the entire budget amendment if she is not satisfied with the resolution that will be presented.
Chappell said his initial reaction is that that will be difficult because he assumes the Public Hearing notice has already published and presents the budget amendment as a whole. He said he has not reviewed the exact details of the notice. Usually the budget amendments are presented as a whole and voted on as such, just like the budget. Sullivan and Stutsman said the Board can lower the budget from the total amount that has been published.
Claiborne said the Board can publish a budget amount and then decide to remove an item, as long as the approved budget does not exceed the amount that was published. Chappell said he thinks that describes a scenario where someone probably made a request to amend the resolution for the budget amendment to reduce it by an amount commensurate with whatever they want to remove. Sullivan said Chappell is saying if the Board wants to proceed that way, this is how the Board should do it. Chappell said yes, without looking into this any further, that is what he recommends. He said he will discuss it with Lyness, and he asked Claiborne to send him the Resolution and a copy of the Public Hearing notice that has already gone out. He asked if the resolution and the Public Hearing have gone out. Claiborne said they were published. Harney said he thinks changes can be made.
Chappell said he thinks the question is a matter of semantics as to how the budget amendment is presented procedurally, but he can discuss it with Lyness. He asked if the Public Hearing is scheduled for next week. Stutsman said perhaps Claiborne can check with the Iowa Department of Management and see what their thoughts are. Chappell said the County Attorney’s Office can be prepared to provide answers. Rettig said OK, because if the Board cannot change the amount in the amendment, then their process is wrong, because the Public Hearing notice is already published before the Board actually sees it. Chappell said he thinks there is a way to do it. Rettig said OK, thank you. Sullivan said the Board just wants to make sure it is done right.
Claiborne said it was done in FY11. Rettig said it was done with the full budget. Claiborne agreed. He said the Board lowered the budget. Chappell said if there is not some way to lower the budget, then they are forced to prejudge everything before the Public Hearing and the Public Hearing is meaningless, which should not be the case and he assumes is not the case.
Chappell said Johnson contacted him about the procedure the County will have to follow. Apparently an appraisal has been done, so at least the County has an idea of what the property is worth. He asked what the Board wants to do and how they want to sell it, and added that the paperwork is largely uncomplicated at this point. They will use the same format and documents that have been used previously. They just need to know what the Board’s proposal is and how they initially think they will dispose of the property.
Facilities Manager David Kempf said Cook Appraisal LLC completed an appraisal. He said he has discussed this with Kriz. He and Kriz think the appraisal is very favorable and quite a bit higher than they had assumed it would be. Kempf said Kriz recommended the County set a minimum price at or near the appraised value and accept sealed bids for the property.
Rettig asked if the minimum acceptance price is the appraised value or something lower. Kempf said the Board can determine what they want the minimum amount to be. Rettig said, if the minimum is the appraised value, then it does not make sense for someone to bid on the property unless they really want it. Stutsman said unless there are two or three people who want the property. Rettig said, if the minimum is set at some percentage below the appraised price, then there is room to negotiate.
Kempf said the current real estate market should be taken into consideration. Properties are being sold below their appraised value. Rettig agreed with that being true for commercial property. Stutsman said it is important to remember this is the first step in the process. Kempf said Kriz and he think that the appraisal is good enough and if they receive a sealed bid at or close to the appraised value, then the County should be very happy.
Harney said he would be willing to go along with that proposal as long as the Board reserves the right to refuse any and all bids. Kempf said absolutely. Sullivan said the County has used Cook Appraisal LLC frequently, they have a very good reputation, and Chappell has gone to court staking the County’s and Cook Appraisal LLC's reputations on their appraisals. He said he would want to set that amount close to what the appraisal is and the County should expect to receive close to that amount. Kempf agreed.
Rettig said Kempf mentioned sealed bids for this property, but on another property, Kempf mentioned holding an auction. She asked if that is because of the value of the properties. Kempf said yes. He said Kriz and he discussed the fact that a sealed bids process is a little bit cleaner. Occasionally, someone will bid $1 on a property, but like Harney mentioned, the County has the right to refuse any and all offers that fall below the set minimum price.
Sullivan said although the County’s expenses on this property are minimal, it is worth selling. Kempf said the County is still paying utilities on the property. Harney said the building has been empty for about two years, so it is time to get it back on the tax rolls. Sullivan agreed. Kempf said the building has been cleaned and is in nice shape. Stutsman asked what the procedure is for marketing and selling this property. Kempf said he will probably set up a couple of set times for people to view the property and he would also set up appointments if needed.
Sullivan asked Kempf how he plans to advertise the property. Kempf said he will advertise on the County website and also in the newspaper. He will discuss options with Kriz. Stutsman asked if the property would be included in the real estate listing in the Iowa City Press-Citizen newspaper. Sullivan said newspaper ads are almost outdated and he suggested spreading the word with the Iowa City Association of Realtors. Sullivan asked what the time frame will be. Kempf said that is the Board's decision and he asked Chappell to comment on the public notice requirement.
Chappell said a resolution setting forth a proposal and a resolution setting a public hearing could be presented to the Board for a vote on April 28, 2011. That would set the public hearing schedule for May 12, 2011, and then the Board could approve the proposal. At that point, a sale can occur. Kempf suggested starting the process by getting the information to the public and advertising for 30 days.
Chappell asked Board members if they would like to set the minimum price at the appraised value or below the appraised value. Rettig said she thinks people need room to negotiate. Kempf said Kriz and he discussed setting the minimum price within 10% of the appraised value. Sullivan said he is not comfortable with that. Neuzil said the first round can set the minimum price at the appraised value and then redo it if necessary. Stutsman agreed, as long as the Board reserves the right to reject all bids.
Kempf asked if the Board can accept a bid that is 2% below the minimum advertised price. Chappell said that depends on how much flexibility the Board wishes to have. The Board can decide to reject any bids below the minimum price, or they can plan to accept sealed bids with set minimums to be determined by the Board. The first round would be to seek bids at the appraised price and if a second round were necessary, the Board might agree to something lower. Chappell said these decisions are up to the Board.
Rettig said it makes sense to allow for some flexibility, especially for the bidder who might be really, really close to the appraised value. Harney proposed setting a minimum bid at 95% of the appraised value. Sullivan, Neuzil, and Rettig agreed. Chappell asked if the Board would like to reserve the right to reject all bids or any bids below the minimum. Stutsman proposed rejecting all bids below the minimum. Chappell asked if the minimum is a true minimum or a target minimum. Rettig said if four bids came in at around 95% of the appraised value, she would assume that is the market price. If only one came in at 95%, she would assume that bidder got lucky. This is why she would like the right to reject all bids.
Sullivan said his concern is if they get too far away from the appraised price, people will work the system and submit a bid within a few dollars of the publicized minimum. That is why he prefers 95%. Stutsman said she thinks Chappell is asking if the Board would consider anything below 95%, and she said she does not wish to. Kempf said for example, if a bid came in at 94% of the appraised value, would the Board want to accept it. Chappell advised setting a true minimum bid and sticking with that, especially if the minimum will be set below the appraised price. Board members agreed. Chappell asked, if the bids are rejected, does the Board wish to have the ability to set a new minimum, or does the Board wish to revisit the discussion and plan anew. Board members agreed to the latter.
Chappell asked if Board members want a minimum number of bidders. Board members said no. Sullivan said as long as they get 95% of the appraised value. Chappell asked Board members to determine the payment schedule. Kempf said he thinks they accepted a 5% or 10% down payment for the College Street property on the day of the sale and then he thinks the closing was within 45 days. He said this is a reasonable schedule for this property also. Chappell said he will duplicate the payment schedule from the College Street property sale.
Chappell asked if the Board wishes to add any contingencies. The Board did not express any desire for contingencies. Chappell said the resolution will be ready for approval at next week's Formal Meeting.
Johnson said the Board received an inquiry last week regarding advertising for the openings on the Veteran Affairs Commission. Johnson looked into this and learned that in 2009, the Iowa Code was amended to add a section including the definition of veterans to be residents who had served on active federal service other than training in the Armed Forces and who are discharged under honorable conditions. Johnson said Veteran Affairs Director Leo Baier said this pretty much covers everything and so Johnson has since re-advertised with this language. Two terms have been advertised: one is a one-year term and one is a three-year term. This will stagger the vacancies so two are not open in one year.
Johnson said, he, Kempf, and Former University of Iowa Campus Planner Larry Wilson are working on the project assigned by the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee to consider space priorities. There is no CJCC meeting during the first week in May. The next Key Issues Meeting is scheduled for April 27, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. and an Elected Officials Meeting for April 27, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for April 28, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
Rettig asked if Johnson would be willing to provide Board members with a list of all of the Sheriff's Contracts for the Provision of Law Enforcement Services on one spreadsheet. Johnson said sure. Stutsman said she was happy to hear Solon residents speak out in support of paying the $35 per hour for the Sheriff's services.
Neuzil said he participated in the Iowa City Hospice Walk, and he congratulated the other participants. He said the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Walk is also coming up. He received the Homeland Security Training Advanced Incident Command System (ICS) 400 Certificate and he serves as the public information officer for the Homeland Security for Johnson County and the Emergency Management Association. A training session on the evening of April 21, 2011 at the Johnson County Fairgrounds is scheduled to simulate an incident at a local nuclear center. The Johnson County Fairgrounds would be a location for treatment of individuals exposed to radiation if such an incident ever occurred. His next Listening Post is scheduled for April 29, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. at the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center to discuss red light cameras and speed cameras.
Rettig said she attended a Finance Committee meeting. She serves on the Decategorization Board (Decat), and a vote determined that contracts would not be renewed. The Board had a Joint Meeting with the Solon City Council and staff on April 20, 2011, in Solon. Earth Day is on April 22, 2011, and Johnson County employees and elected officials have been participating in Earth Day events. The lunch hour of service will be postponed to a later date. A Lunch and Listen event is scheduled for April 22, 2011, in the Health and Human Services Building.
Sullivan said he is a Board representative to the Mobile Home Taskforce, and he attended a recent meeting. The Board intends to discuss how to proceed with County ordinances addressing mobile home parks at the Informal Meeting scheduled for April 27, 2011. He is a Board representative to the Parking Committee, and he attended a recent meeting. The Board had a Department Head Meeting during the past week, and Sullivan thanked the department heads for the outstanding work they do. Sullivan is the Board representative to the Iowa City United Nations Education Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) City of Literature. Events are scheduled to occur on April 22 and 23, 2011, for the International Day of the Book. Former United States Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky is scheduled to speak in the Old Capitol Senate Chamber on April 23, 2011.
Stutsman said the Board got a lot done this week during several meetings, and she attended a Space Needs Committee meeting.
Harney said he attended the Military Affairs meeting at the National Guard Armory on April 15, 2011. May 7, 2011, has been set aside to honor all Vietnam War veterans at the Vietnam War Memorial at the Iowa State Capitol grounds in Des Moines, and that is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. He said the County has scheduled a recognition ceremony for veterans from throughout the County on April 29, 2011, in the lobby of the Administration Building. He welcomed the women attending the Tri-T Convention in Coralville, and he attended the Coralville Chamber of Commerce Roundtable meeting. He attended a Decat meeting, the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Roundtable meeting, and a Community Foundation of Johnson County meeting. Harney said the County finally got approval from the Federal Highway Administration to move forward with completing Oakdale Boulevard from Dubuque Street into Coralville. A public informational meeting is scheduled for May 11, 2011, to discuss Oakdale Boulevard, and this will likely be held in the Coralville Library or the Iowa City City Council Chambers.
Adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary