Stutsman: We’re back in session, and I think we’ll move down to Item 4B under business from the Supervisors, discussion/action needed regarding the notice from the City Development Board State of Iowa regarding the City of Edleon petition for incorporation. I hope I said that right. Mike Gardner, County Engineer, is here, as well as Rick Dvorak. I think it would be good to discuss this item so that they can go back to other business. R.J. Moore is here too. Carol, do you want to kind of bring us up to date as to where we’re at on this notice.

Peters: Well, the City received notice of this hearing before the City Development Board on January 14, and they held their first initial hearing on January 20. Subsequent to that initial hearing, another hearing now has been scheduled for February 10 at 1:00 p.m. We just got this notice today. I know the last time I visited with Mr. McCann he said they needed some additional information. If the City Development Board determines that there the petition is complete for processing, and another hearing is needed, that hearing will probably be held here in Johnson County, for it’ll be easier for people to have input to it.

Stutsman: Basically, what this petition is asking is for a town to be created. Is that correct?

Peters: The (inaudible) has requested that he see documentation.

Stutsman: So he’s going through that process. I think we’re to the point now of wanting to respond to that petition in a letter to the City Development Board concerning this plan of incorporation. I guess I would then turn it over to Rick and to Mike or R.J., to say if you have any concerns about this plan. If you have some thoughts about what’s being suggested by Mr. Poula and give an opportunity for input to the Board so that we can send a letter off to the City Development Board.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: We’ve reviewed the application, as I’m sure Mike has. At this point, we have concerns, but I’m not sure how we can really articulate those concerns. Obviously, the roads are a major factor. As the Board is aware, Mr. Poula had some applications before us. We’ve approved some of his applications and then denied a couple of his applications. He stated he’s had 4 applications, we denied all 4, that’s totally incorrect. We’ve denied 2 of his applications. One was for a residence on the farm, which he ended up getting his residence on the farm anyway. Other than that, the roads some notes, but if Mike would like to go ahead and talk about the road, that would let us have a chance to review our notes.

Stutsman: All right. Mike, do you have some comments?

Gardner: My only concern is the impact that it would have on the roads in the area. They would be accessing, as I understand it, the County road, Blaine Cemetery Road, which in turn would either have to outlet onto a better road or go up through Green Castle into 120th Street to the north. Have some major impacts on all of those, those are all granular surface roads at this time, with all the concerns that go along with that type of road.

Stutsman: Basically, he’s talking about making a community or a town. He’s had various rezonings before us that we have denied based on they are not in compliance with our Land Use Plan. This is another attempt for him to continue with his plans to develop in that area. Do you know how many lots or how many houses he’s proposing?

Dvorak: That’s why we had (inaudible) on making any comments on the application, because we don’t know really what the proposal is. There’s a lot of information that he’s submitted, very general information, but nothing specific. We don’t know the demands on the water supply. We don’t know the demands on public services, the fire department in that area, the law enforcement in that area, because I believe he was going to use the local Sheriff’s office, initially, then eventually have his own police department, my understanding, or security department. Again, to respond to how many lots. Potential is enormous. He’s got 126 acres, you could put a minimum of at least 3 residences or more per lot, depending on the density he’s trying to achieve. I don’t remember him commenting on that.

Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: He, he did here. Basically, it figures out at about 600 residential lots or residential structures to accommodate his proposed population, based on 3.2 people per residential unit on the 126 acres. So, that basically is 600 residential units on 126 acres.

Stutsman: What’s an average when you talk about a residential unit? How many people do they usually say is in each residential unit?

Dvorak: Well, I’ve been using 3.2.

Gardner: I think his proposal actually says an average of 5 residents per household is what he’s putting.

Moore: And that’s (inaudible) of any data that we use for estimating population.

Thompson: It says that…

Stutsman: So, we’re talking about 3,000 people in…

Thompson: It says that it would raise the population density on that .2 of a square mile from 5 people per square mile to 9,601 people per square mile.

Stutsman: Well.

Thompson: On an unimproved road, unpaved road.

Moore: Well, to go along with Mike’s concerns as we reviewed this, that was a concern we had is our infrastructure there and our roads, is that we’re dealing with gravel roads until he hits the… It would hit Amana, which I believe… Have you converted that back to gravel or is that still kind of…

Gardner: No, it’s rock.

Moore: It is rock. And then he has to go all the way up to 120th Street going north to hit a paved road. Otherwise, that’s all rock roads and not capable. These, you did a daily trip generation by this development that’s overwhelmed rock roads.

Stutsman: Well, there would not be rock roads. It would have to be even beyond the seal, or not the seal coat, but the calcium chloride right up to a paved road.

Jordahl: Maybe we could say something like, well, we wouldn’t mind us going in there as long as he would pave all of the roads going to the nearest hard surface road north and south, east and west and then we’d be all right. But, I don’t think he’d do that.

Thompson: Talk a little bit about fire protection and rescue services. It says that immediately they would establish a volunteer fire department. Well, immediately there will only be a few people living there. Will the current population sustain a volunteer fire department?

Dvorak: That’s why I thought he was going to rely on County services.

Moore: It’s only one right now.

Thompson: It’s not what it says here. What will they do for trucks and all that stuff in this volunteer fire department?

Dvorak: Well, I think Carol had a, maybe, response to that question. Didn’t you have the economics on this?

Peters: Right now there is only one person to be there. In the new petition, or new notice that was sent today, there are some figures, but I have to call Steve to get a definition of what these figures mean.

Lehman: Get one volunteer fire department, would you have to page yourself or how would that work?

Jordahl: It would depend on whether you were listening to the pager or not.

Thompson: It doesn’t sound very safe to me.

Jordahl: Or sleeping would be a problem.

Moore: It’s probably not…

Thompson: In addition, the letter that we prepared to send to the City Development Commission some time ago, this meets all the points in there. I think we should just get that letter out and send it verbatim.

Stutsman: Yes.

Thompson: In addition, the thing we haven’t talked about is schools. Is there any plan for schools for that part of the County if they had a town up there? I didn’t see anything in here about that, but I might have missed it.

Jordahl: It might promote home schooling.

Dvorak: I guess he figures College Community School District will handle it.

Thompson: Well, have they talked to College Community? Are they expecting 9,000 more or 1,800 more people in their district?

Stutsman: We do have a template letter drafted that we have used to respond to annexations or petitions of this sort. My feeling is right now is, I don’t know if it’s worth spending a lot of time discussing this petition. I guess I would just be in agreement to send that letter and wait for the public hearing and just air our concerns. I quite frankly, my personal feelings on this is this is a waste of a lot of people’s time and I don’t know if it warrants a lot of our time to discuss this issue. That’s my own personal opinion. It’s not a reflection of the Board.

Jordahl: It looks to me like it’s just an attempt to circumvent the County’s Land Use Plan and call a rural development a city.

Duffy: Well, not exactly Jonathan. Does anybody here speak for this?

Stutsman: Well, this isn’t a public hearing, Charlie. This is just for discussion.

Duffy: Yes, but it’s been in the news and everything. It kind of surprises me…

Lehman: I want to ask if Pat had a take on this. Are we proceeding correctly?

White: You are. The statute includes criteria looking at potential growth and population cost and adequacy of existing services and facilities. Potential effect of the proposal and of possible alternative proposals on the cost and adequacy of services and facilities and potential effect of the proposal on adjacent areas and on any unit of government directly affected. Your comments couched in any of those terms or in the terms within your comprehensive plan would be relevant to the City Development Board’s consideration. I think you’ll…

Stutsman: R.J.? Oh, I’m sorry. Pat?

Moore: The way Pat reread that, I haven’t seen it for awhile. I think it’s very appropriate. The impacts, if it were approved, and I’m not saying… The impact on the County, since he’s proposing initially that we would provide the fire protection from Swisher, the law enforcement from the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department, the School System, the College Community School System. Those impacts are great on us. Back to the roads again, we have to assume those in the beginning until the City could get established and have a tax base that could handle some of those costs.

Stutsman: Well, and then when I view too, of how many available lots there are in that area, I question, too, what’s the need to establish a new community and put additional strain on already limited resources. So, are we in agreement just to go ahead and send that letter? Is that appropriate Carol, to send that letter at this point?

Peters: Mr. McCann said they welcome any additional information.

Stutsman: OK.

Peters: The City of Swisher and ECICOG also were sent notices of this.

Stutsman: Could you draft or get a copy of that what we have used in the past and circulate it to the Board and see if there is any other points that we want to make or any…

Jordahl: Oh. Well, hey, you might want to point that out Mike.

Lehman: Yes. He’d suggested administrative services. A Uniform Building Code would be adopted. That’s kind of interesting.

Jordahl: Now, there’s a plus.

Thompson: Who’s going to enforce it?

Lehman: I think the Animal Control. Same paragraph there. I’m not sure.

Stutsman: OK. Well, I think if you could circulate that letter and then let’s put it on for next Thursday for action to send that.

Peters: R.J. and Rick and Mike, I’ll have them review it also to see if they have any additional comments. But, the letter will address all that.

Jordahl: I’m just thinking. On the one hand I think you’re right. We shouldn’t spend a lot of time with this. On the other hand, if you wanted to spend some time with this you’d have some fun.

Stutsman: Well, and I don’t know if that’s a good use of our time.

Jordahl: I particularly like this phrase here. It says by preplanning a city ahead of development, rather than planning because of development.

Stutsman: Any other comments from Board Members? Anything else that we want to direct Carol or staff to add?

Thompson: Well, in our template letter, we mentioned schools in a paragraph with other things. I think since this is such a large development, maybe we should pull out that schools part and put it in a separate paragraph.

Stutsman: OK. Thank you very much. Get my agenda back on track here.

Stutsman: Item A is Discussion Action Needed Regarding a Letter from Frances Ufkes, Library Volunteer and Grant Writer, Requesting a Letter of Support for a Grant Proposal to McElroy Trust in Waterloo, Iowa. I was contacted by Frances asking the Board of Supervisors to write a letter of support for a grant that they are writing to the McElroy Trust. The grant would basically be used for upgrading and expanding computer internet

service to the North Liberty library. Frances called this morning and said that they are asking for, not $16,000, but $18,000 from the McElroy Trust. She had inadvertently left out some things that she had meant to put into the grant. This wouldn’t be any County dollars. This is a private, grant to a private corporation. So, all we would be doing is sending them a letter of support saying that we support the grant and hope that it would be funded.

Thompson: So, do we have a draft of the letter on for next Thursday?

Stutsman: Right. Yes. The timing, yes, the letter of support needs to be submitted by February 17th. So, if we could have that on by the 10th. So, if it’s OK to, for the Board to go ahead and write that letter, then we’ll have it on for final action on the 10th. They’ll be pleased if the Board is willing to do that. This is something we do on a regular basis when different groups come to us with grants that we write letters of support saying we agree with that and that it would be a good thing for the community and I certainly think that falls into this category.

Jordahl: One of the things we’ve talked about, too, with regard to televising these meetings is whether information is available in rural areas and this internet access, we’ve got a good website, we’ve got minutes and agendas and so forth out there and all kinds of other stuff. This would be additional access to the North Corridor and I think it’s just an excellent thing and we’re not going to spend any money on it.

Stutsman: Yes. Good plan. OK.

(Continued in Part 3)