Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:17 a.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
Stutsman: Call to order the Johnson County Board of Supervisors for Thursday, February 17th, 2000. The second item on the agenda is business for Joanne Hora, Chair of the Senior Center Skywalk Strategic Planning Committee. This is regarding the skywalk connecting the Senior Center and the parking ramp. I know Joanne here and I think you have some other people with you.
Senior Center Commission Chair Jay Honahan: She’s here and she’s delegating the job to me.
Stutsman: OK. She’s been before us before.
Honahan: Today she wants me to do it, so you’re stuck with me.
Stutsman: OK, if you want to introduce yourself.
Honahan: Jay Honahan, I’m a member of the Senior Center Commission. First, we’re here to talk about the skywalk today, and we thought it might be appropriate, and I’m sorry I didn’t bring a lot of copies, but I have here for the Board’s information, a copy of our Community Development Block Grant application which we have made. I’ll let you have it. I’m not here to discuss that, but just for your informational purposes, so you know what’s going on. I thought, one of the first things I did is respond a little bit to the Board about some of the information that’s been in the news media lately about the skywalk. There have been some discussions that we hadn’t explored all alternatives regarding the skywalk. I can assure you that we have been exploring all the alternatives. We have explored things that we might do with Ecumenical Towers and we’re unable to do that because they have to have secured entrances and secure lobby in the ramp themselves. We have explored not having the elevator. Because of the grades in that, if we didn’t have the elevator that we are proposing here, we would have to either have to have a lift at the end of the ramp, which HUD does not like the lift proposal. Or we would have to have a mini elevator at the end of the ramp. A lot of the costs associated with a mini elevator would be the same costs with a regular elevator. We elected to have what is, in our opinion the best solution, even though it’s a little more expensive, and that’s to have an elevator that accesses the mezzanine, the ground floor and the second floor. We’re very much committed to the skywalk, the Senior Center Commission. I might add that we do have the commitment of the City Council, not withstanding what the Press Citizen seems to say. We first got our commitment in a 4 to 3 vote in November of last year. In discussions we’ve had with members of the City Council at this time, we’re led to believe that we have 5 or 6 members of the Council that will support the skywalk that we are trying to finance and get constructed this year. Turning now to the other item that we’re here on the agenda, I’m soliciting money from you. We have a specific amount that we would like to suggest that you might contribute to the skywalk construction. The Joella Antes estate willed $25,000 to the Senior Center Gift Fund, and an additional $25,000 to Senior Dining. It’s our understanding that the $25,000 to Senior Dining has never been expended. Since we feel that the skywalk will benefit Senior Dining, as it will all of the other agencies in the Center, others that are supported by the County, we would like to see the County contribute that $25,000 as part of our community fundraising drive. At this time, by the way, we have raised over $50,000 and we’re continuing our fund driving to obtain the goal of $120,000 from the community. With me is Joanne, Terry Miller the former Chair, and Linda Kopping and we’d be happy to answer any questions that the Board might have. We’d like you to seriously consider that 25.
Stutsman: Jay, refresh my memory. How much money was the Senior Commission to raise towards this ramp?
Honahan: 120.
Stutsman: OK.
Honahan: That’s our goal. 120. The goal was 120 from the Community, 120 from the City, and 120 Community Development Block Grant, which would be repaid when the parking revenue bonds are retired for the ramp.
Stutsman: I wonder if you’re not successful with the Block Grant. It’s competitive, isn’t it?
Honahan: Yes, it’s very competitive. We even overdid our 15 minutes last night discussing with the Board. We’d have to look at that when and if that would happen.
Lehman: Right now you’re looking at a goal of 3 times 120,000, it would be 360,000. The elevators is not included. The cost of the elevator is not included.
Honahan: No, that’s the entire cost. The actual, and these are just round figures. I talked to the architect and you know there is some duplication when you do this between the elevator and the skywalk, but the skywalk itself probably is 120,000 to 150,000, something in that neighborhood, and the elevator is the balance.
Lehman: OK.
Honahan: For instance the elevator itself is $60,000 not counting the foundation, the shaft and all that sort of stuff.
Thompson: You’re asking for this to be a contribution to the publicly raised part of the project.
Honahan: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Thompson: In addition we would probably be expected to pay 10% of the City’s cost? Or 20% of the City’s cost?
Honahan: 20%, that’s the 28E agreement, that’s correct.
Stutsman: I guess I didn’t realize that this was going to be a proposal, and Mike Foster obviously needs to be here if we start talking about using those dollars for the ramp.
Thompson: Carol did get a copy of the bequest out for us, and I think we probably would want to submit the question to the County Attorney too about whether this is an appropriate use for the funds.
Stutsman: OK.
Thompson: Just to make sure.
Jordahl: My first reaction to this, maybe not an appropriate thing to say, but I’m going to just jump out and say it anyway… The primary need for the Senior Dining Program is for additional space for offices, food storage, kitchen and so forth. I agree with Sally that we should have Mike Foster’s input to this as to whether this is the highest priority, from his point of view, for the expenditure of those funds.
Peters: Would you like me to put this back on, either next week’s or 2 weeks away?
Stutsman: I think we need to do that.
Honahan: I didn’t expect you’d unanimously give us the 25,000 this morning.
Stutsman: You just are here to plant the seed, right.
Honahan: That’s right.
Thompson: Jay, what’s your time frame?
Honahan: What is our time frame? Well, as soon as possible. We don’t have a specified time frame in terms of when we will be getting all these funds. The Council, we’re talking about another month and a half, 2 months before the Community Development Block Grant will be finalized, so we don’t know there. That, of course, as Sally has pointed out, that may change our goals one way or the other, we don’t know. We did get some favorable comments and we got a lot of questions last night so I can’t judge what’s going to happen there. Obviously I don’t have the information about the other competing requests. We did see a couple last night. I don’t know about the CDBG yet. None of us do. We’re just trying to get the 120 as soon as we can from the community.
Lehman: Do we have any deadlines as far as construction of the ramp, the project’s underway already where they have to hold up on a decision.
Honahan: There’s no deadline for that that I’m aware of.
Thompson: Did I hear you say that the City has already contributed the $25,000 that they got from this bequest?
Honahan: This was through the Senior Center, yes.
Thompson: OK.
Honahan: We have already done that.
Stutsman: Any other questions of comments? We have not had a discussion of what kind of a role the Board wants to put towards this project, and so I think it is good that we put that on for an agenda item. You know, if not out of these funds, Mike certainly has to be here to discuss whether we’ll use these funds or if there are other funds that the County wants to…
Honahan: I’m getting out my calendar.
Stutsman: OK. I don’t know what the agenda’s like next Thursday, Carol, if that would, if Mike’s available then. We might have to do some checking.
Peters: I’d have to contact, I was going to suggest, I know this is a long ways away, but with your busy schedule and the County Attorney’s busy, March is a bad month, is what I’m trying to say. Do you want to look at March 30th?
Stutsman: Alright.
Thompson: That would be on the informal?
Stutsman: That should give everybody plenty of time to get their calendars lined up. Is that OK?
Peters: I’ll try to get a hold of Mike Foster and touch base with the County Attorney.
Stutsman: OK, very good.
Jordahl: What’s the time table of your project fundraising, building, is there some way we have to articulate with the ramp construction, or can this take place after that’s completed.
Honahan: We would like to have this done this spring. That’s what we’re talking about. The full, know just where we stand. When we know what the CDBG is going to do, then we’ll have to be talking probably with you people and the City Council to finalize it. We don’t have to have it done next month, if that’s what you mean. We’d like to.
Lehman: We’re concerned about, this construction proceeds, if they don’t make provisions for this skywalk, it will cost money to go back and adapt later.
Honahan: Yes, definitely. I feel confident this is going to proceed, and we’re going to discuss this with the Council and the architects.
Stutsman: OK, well why don’t we go ahead and tentatively plan on the 30th, unless you hear from us that there’s a change.
Honahan: OK, I wrote it down.
Stutsman: OK, real good. Thank you. Jay, did you introduce Terry Miller, too?
Honahan: I thought I did.
Stutsman: OK, I’m sorry, I guess I didn’t…
Senior Center Commission Member Terry Miller: If I might make a comment. The application for the block grant has a lot of really good information about the necessity for the skywalk and reactions of the participants at the center and their needs for the skywalk. I would strongly urge that that document be distributed so that you can all take a look at it.
Stutsman: Ca we keep this copy, Jay?
Honahan: Yes. That’s for you.
Stutsman: I didn’t know if you needed us to make a copy of it. Thanks for pointing that out. It did look like it had a lot of good information just from what I scanned on that.
Miller: It does. It’s very informative. Talking just about the accessibility and how necessary it is for a lot of the seniors.
Jordahl: The elevator would be on the Senior Center side of the alleyway.
Honahan: That’s correct.
Jordahl: This is going to really increase accessibility to the Senior Center.
Miller: Absolutely it will, and for the Senior Center Dining folks. It will provide them a direct access also during the weekend when the Center is not open, so it will greatly contribute to the accessibility of all of the participants.
Honahan: In my opinion, this will increase the use of the Senior Center from all population groups of the County because… Well imagine Mercy Hospital, the University of Iowa, their ramps make it very convenient for people to park and go into the facility, and the same thing will be true. As you know, there were parking problems, there are parking problems before the ramp was even started. There are parking problems now. Parking completely isn’t going to go away with the new ramp. But it will provide a great deal of parking particularly on the weekends for Senior Dining because the students won’t be using it quite as much on the weekends as they, and I don’t know if the City will make some provisions like they do in the other ramps. That 10:00 deal, to try to keep the students down a little bit. But the increased parking and the ability to come across by the skywalk, in my opinion, will just increase the use of the Senior Center period because it will make it so much more easy for people to get there.
Jordahl: One more detailed question I want to ask, will there be an access to the elevator from the alleyway ground level.
Honahan: Yes.
Jordahl: Some one on the street can get in that way.
Honahan: That’s right.
Jordahl: Good.
Stutsman: OK. Thank you all for coming in and we’ll look forward to that discussion on the 30th.
Honahan: Thank you for your time.
Stutsman: I see that Cheryl Whitney is not here but I see that Mike Gardner is here. I wonder if we can just move on to business from the County Attorney?
Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: County Engineer.
Stutsman: County Engineer, I’m sorry. Thank you. Janet all of a sudden woke up.
Stutsman: Mike Gardener, County Engineer Al Miller, Assistant County Engineer, and Kevin Hackathorn, Maintenance Supervisor at the Secondary Road Department. First item for discussion will be discussion/action needed regarding right-of-way acquisition for grade, drain and pave project on Sand Road Southeast.
County Engineer Mike Gardner: This is the project that we’ve been in to discuss different issues on it earlier with you. We just wanted to bring you up to date on where we’re at in the right-of-way acquisition process and with that I guess I’ll turn it over to Al and let him explain it to you.
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller: I think the first item is the Sand Road project. We have signed everybody except for, it’s actually 5, but I’ve got 4 listed here, to proceed to condemnation on it. The 5th one is in Florida and is going to back next and has agreed to sign, so I didn’t put him on here. The first item is, I do have a counter-offer that’s listed at the top there for Parcel Number 21. The acquisition is kind of listed out there for you. We did have some trees and landscape in some property we look to purchase and our offer is there and their counter-offer is below it.
Gardner: We’re going to continue with the negotiation process on this. The reason we’re in here today is so that we can go ahead and next Thursday have you authorize the County Attorney’s Office to proceed to set up a condemnation hearing date so we can certify the right-of-way to the DOT and still make all of our deadlines to hit an April letting. This doesn’t mean that we’re not going to continue negotiation. That will continue, but we needed to get these items in place so that we can get all of our I’s dotted and T’s crossed to make the deadlines for the DOT’s timetable.
Stutsman: To stay on track for that, bid letting for April 25th?
Gardner: That’s what we’re still shooting for.
Lehman: I guess for my information and the public, how many property owners do you have to deal with? You’re looking at 2.2 miles.
Miller: Yes, there were 21 parcels on the thing.
Lehman: Takes a lot of time.
Miller: Yes.
Jordahl: This is some outside money coming to this, 120,000?
Gardner: For the project itself?
Jordahl: For the bridge.
Miller: We’re on the Sand Road.
Jordahl: You’re talking about Sand Road now.
Gardner: There is Federal funding on the Sand Road project and the amount of that is…
Jordahl: 390 it says.
Gardner: 390 and change.
Stutsman: OK, so is the Board OK with putting this on for next Thursday so that we can proceed with this process? Any questions, are we OK with that?
Gardner: It may be that we have some of these signed by then, and we’ll need to, but we wanted to go ahead and get the groundwork laid so we can come in on Thursday. Al will be coming in on Thursday.
Stutsman: OK.
Miller: Any more questions on the Sand Road project? Obviously there is a counter-offer there, so next week you’d have to make a decision on what you want to do with the counter-offer. That offer we’ve made is based on an appraisal. This is one of those areas where it’s under the $10,000 that we could have used the compensation estimate on, but we elected to get a full-blown appraisal on because there was some value to the property based on the landscape that was there. We did get a full-blown appraisal and our final offer was based on that appraisal.
Stutsman: That includes the trees and landscaping and things in addition to the land.
Miller: Yes. That would be something you need to make a decision on. Our recommendation would be, our offer is reasonable.
Stutsman: OK. Anything else then with Sand Road? Are we ready to move on then to Item B? Discussion action needed regarding right-of-way acquisition for bridge replacement project on Kansas Avenue Southwest over Old Man’s Creek.
Miller: This project had 3 parcels only and we’ve got everybody signed and listed here and what we’d request that the Board act and give the Chairman approval to sign the contracts and the easement documents.
Gardner: That will be on next week.
Duffy: Good work.
Stutsman: Very good work. I bet a number of the neighbors were anxious to get that bridge replaced. They’re probably more than happy to give some right-of-way so that could be accomplished.
Miller: Yes, that one worked out pretty well.
Jordahl: And get some money in the deal too.
Stutsman: OK, so we’ll be ready to put those on then for formal action then next Thursday. Item C, discussion action needed regarding purchase of a new Oshkosh Model truck to replace a 1988 Oshkosh truck. Cost with trade in to be $91,207. I imagine Kevin, you’re going to talk to this item.
Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Hackathorn: Yes. We had budgeted 90,000 for it. It came in just a little bit more than what we figured it was. It’s a specialty truck. It’s hard to get a price against it because it’s a one of a kind type vehicle.
Jordahl: That’s pretty low, 90 to 91. I mean as a percentage of the whole.
Hackathorn: Yes. It will be going down in the Frytown area to replace the older one that we have down there. I wish I had it right now with what they’re saying is coming.
Jordahl: Yes, maybe they can put a rush on it.
Stutsman: You say specialty. What does that mean? What does it do?
Hackathorn: A lot of companies will make a 4 wheel drive conversion they can put on a big dump truck, and this company deals with strictly 4 wheel drive vehicles, heavy duty, and they’ve got some features that they alone offer, you know as far as patents go and the like. We’ve tried brand X before and we didn’t have much luck with it. That’s why you don’t see, really, any competitive bid against it, but we are, we deal with in trying to get the best price we can out of them. This one we’re trading in, when we bought it we paid $86,127, and they’re giving us $86,000 trade. Along with the price going up they hold their value also.
Stutsman: I guess.
Jordahl: Not much depreciation over 10 years there.
Hackathorn: No.
Lehman: Actually 12 years.
Stutsman: How many miles?
Hackathorn: The mileage on the truck is low because actually what it does, it blades a lot of gravel roads. It can go out and spend 8 hours in a day and only go 40, 50 miles because it’s blading gravel in the summer. The mileage really doesn’t reflect the use that’s been on the truck.
Lehman: I imagine there have been quite a few, in 12 years, updates and improvements.
Hackathorn: Yes.
Lehman: Reinforcements to the newer models that what you had before in a 12 year old.
Hackathorn: In fact, Linn County called me not too long ago offering an old Oshkosh they had and I think it was, what 16 years old, and the updates and everything we’d have to do on it, we’re better off to buy a new one. It was budgeted for.
Stutsman: OK, but it is just a little over what was budgeted.
Hackathorn: Yes.
Stutsman: Not a lot.
Hackathorn: Yes 1,207. Yes, we budgeted 90,000. That was, just about a year ago, trying to guess what it would cost.
Jordahl: That’s not going to require and amendment. There’s room in that line in your budget.
Stutsman: When is it scheduled to be delivered.
Hackathorn: They’re thinking October. When I talked to him the other day he thought maybe in September.
Stutsman: OK.
Hackathorn: We’ll have it by next snow season.
Duffy: I will say we ought to credit the Johnson County Road Department in its workers. That we have a good reputation, that our trucks, in this case truck, has been taken care of, and the feedback I’ve had that there are some places that just wait for Johnson County vehicles to come in and I think that’s why we get a bargain trade in. It’s gotten around. I heard that from another state.
Hackathorn: Thanks, and you know they do take pride in their vehicles out there. We’ve got a good crew out there.
Lehman: Just out of curiosity, of the coloring. I know some of your pickups you’ve changed colors. Are the larger trucks still orange.
Hackathorn: No, we’re going to red on them also.
Lehman: Does that help in resale value down the road?
Hackathorn: Resale, and that orange is a higher cost paint, special order type thing, and the red still falls under that Federal safety colors.
Stutsman: I didn’t know that.
Duffy: I didn’t either.
Stutsman: I thought they just missed the paint job.
Hackathorn: Most people distinguish when they call in sometimes and say well, such and such happened to me, it was an orange truck, it had to be yours. Well, there are different departments with orange trucks. It will help them out a little bit.
Lehman: Also the trade in value, I know DOT tractors and stuff, it sometimes is a detriment
Hackathorn: I know a lot of the counties, they go to the lot and they’ll buy blue, green, whatever is out there, but we’re trying to stick with something that’s bright that you can see in a snow bank.
Stutsman: Good point. OK, any other comments? Are we ready to put this on for Thursday for formal action?
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: Alright.
Gardner: I don’t know if there needs to be a formal action on that or not.
Lehman: Information.
Jordahl: Yes, just kind of more informing us of the expense of this magnitude.
Gardner: Yes, when we get larger equipment coming in, we usually came in and told you.
Stutsman: Just informed the Board.
Peters: Have you notified the (inaudible)?
Gardner: No.
Stutsman: When it’s over 50,000 it’s required.
Hackathorn: I thought they did away with that, but maybe not because we used to get them from other counties.
Peters: I thought they did too, but in a meeting the other day they said no.
Gardner: OK.
Lehman: We’ve received them from Iowa City and Coralville.
Jordahl: Yes, and we’re trying to move more in that direction of joint purchasing for example, it it’s possible, I think ECICOG has a mechanism for that as well.
Stutsman: Alright then, go through that process. Anything else Mike?
Gardner: Under other I just wanted to touch on road embargoes to let you know that we’re getting close to that time, and I thought if I could bring it to your attention right now.
Stutsman: Good idea.
Gardner: We’re not experiencing a problem yet but it’s coming up. I thought maybe if I could just touch base on it today, maybe once we saw the problems starting to occur, we could bring it in the next Thursday that it happens so that we wouldn’t have to go through the 10 day wait.
Stutsman: Do you have any kind of idea of a time frame, because I think that’s what people are most concerned about, you know, when do you think it will be put on.
Gardner: We don’t. Normally it’s late February, early March when it first goes out, so we’re getting pretty close to the time when that’s going to be a concern.
Jordahl: I mean we do want to give people enough warning to adjust their plans for their lives.
Gardner: Right, but if we sit and wait for a week and a half, there’s a lot of damage that can be done to the roads and I think that probably should be our main concern.
Stutsman: It’s generally within the same time frame every year so people should be aware.
Gardner: We have put notices in the paper. We’ve sent notices out to all the local contractors and people that we have dealt with in the past that need to be made aware of it. They’ve already been put on alert, this spring already, that it’s coming.
Jordahl: This 10 day requirement, this is something the State imposes?
Gardner: No, I’m saying, if I had to get it on the agenda on a Tuesday just to talk about it informally on Thursday then wait for you take formal action on the resolution the following Thursday it would be 10 days. I’m hoping that by notifying today that it’s coming not too far down the pike that we can just come in on Tuesday and you can take formal action.
Stutsman: Well, you’d have to come in on Thursday. It would have to be on formal on Thursday.
Lehman: I also talked to Mike and some other people have had calls, people questioning this embargo, and one of the individuals I talked to had leased a facility on a chip and seal road not thinking this would involve him with heavy trucks. People ask about exceptions and stuff and I the thing we need to point out is that this embargo is for a reason. If we start making exceptions and stuff, there’s no reason to have it. There is a specific reason to keep the condition of our roads so we’re not expending more taxpayer dollars to improve them after the damage is done. There is a very practical purpose for this.
Jordahl: Just as we are not expanding the number of oil roads in the County, because this is a very expensive type of thing to maintain, we’re also converting them to hard surface roads as we are able. The goal, ultimately, is to not have any of these seal coat roads out there and this won’t be a problem.
Stutsman: It sounds like there is support from the Board to approach it from that way.
Gardner: Thank you very much.
Stutsman: OK. Thank you.