Lehman: Next is Business from Elaine Sweet again, Director of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. And, once again, I might ask Bruce Juetten and Lou Miller, in absence of Elaine, who, as was mentioned earlier, a death in her family, the passing of her father, which, we offer our sympathy for that. This is a Targeted Case Management Policy and Procedure Manual, and this will require formal action by the Board?

Clinical Supervisor Bruce Juetten: Correct.

Lehman: Is there a deadline that we need to…

Juetten: I don’t know what the actual deadline is, but we do need your approval.

Lehman: OK. And this is our policy and procedure that has been reviewed by our Planning Council?

Juetten: And all other appropriate entities.

Lehman: OK. And so we will need to take formal action to approve this, and send this on to the state for their approval? Is that correct?

Juetten: Yes.

Lehman: OK. I believe this is something that we’re all pretty much aware with, been circulated. Details have been pretty well discussed through committee work, and I don’t think there’s anything you need to publicly acknowledge or discuss. I think it’s all pretty much here in the print.

Juetten: I think it’s all pretty much said and done.

Lehman: I don’t think there’s any large changes from last year’s.

Juetten: From last year? The basic process remains the same. Medicaid didn’t change that, so no.

Lehman: OK. So we’ll see that next week for formal approval, then.

Juetten: Great.

Lehman: OK. Then we have Division of Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Risk Pool Application.

Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne: I worked with Elaine on this a little bit.

Lehman: OK.

Horne: She talked to me a little bit about this.

Lehman: Jeff Horne, our budget director.

Horne: I reviewed the numbers with Elaine for the Risk Pool, and in further reviewing them, it was her recommendation and mine that the County does not apply for the Risk Pool. Based on the numbers, we’re not sure of eligibility and the Risk Pool Grant was to be something that we would look at as a last resort. If you apply for this type of grant, it’s a one-time thing. They do make loans available, but we talked about it in the grant context.

Lehman: In discussion with Elaine, she didn’t feel that we had an immediate need, that we might be better off waiting for more future use…

Horne: Yes.

Lehman: …even though there’s no guarantee that this pool may be available at that time, but she didn’t feel justified in applying for it.

Horne: That’s right, at this time.

Lehman: OK. Any other clarification needed? Everyone had visited a little bit about that before, but I appreciate the clarification. Anything else?

Lehman: Next item is business from Jeff Horne, our Budget Coordinator, Monthly Reports for February 2001. A little update on the budgetary conditions of the departments.

Horne: Yes. Through February Expenses and Revenues, we continued the 2nd, about 2/3 of the year. The departments are doing a pretty good job of staying within budget, overall. The Treasurer, Recorder, Human Services and Conservation are all doing an especially good job of staying within their budgets. Our overall revenues and expenses are at 56% and 55%, respectively. I’m going to go down a summary of some items of note in various departments, here. The Recorder, she said her revenues have been slower than anticipated. I met with her. She indicated to me that May and June, coming up, are large revenue months for her, and she expects to be near the targeted amount by the end of the fiscal year. SEATS Director Dewey presented me with a breakdown of the moving expenses we had originally budgeted $100,000 for. She came in $21,000 underneath that, so that will be going back into the Capital Projects fund for reallocation. Director Dewey felt that she will be within budget for the year; that will allow her that move completely, so she will be all set. After that, that’ll be on the budget amendments coming up this month. Physical Plant, we had some cost overruns on the Physical Plant. Obviously, we’ve had a very hard winter, and we have had a very big spike in our heating expenses and fuel expenses and small line-items such as our supplies for the winter have gone over, several of them. So we’re watching that and going to try to keep that within for the year, still, hopefully. Planning and Zoning, there’s some concerns about possibly inspections revenue. Rick Dvorak has told me that he expects that to pick up here, as we enter the prime building months. With the hard weather, it’s slowed down the construction quite a bit, and expect that to pick up quite a bit in the spring. That’s something I’m going to keep watching as the months go on, here. Veteran’s Affairs, we’ve discussed Veteran’s Affairs already, several times. The director has indicated to me he may put forth, he may request a budget amendment to cover anticipated increased demands in his department. Just a little update on the Fiscal Year 2002 budget; we’ve completed work on that. The presentation hearing was held on March 6th, and the budget was passed by the Board of Supervisors on March 8th. A few notes here. I’m continuing work on a Capital Improvements Draft Plan. The Space Needs Committee that can work on it, and serve as a starting point, to give the Board of Supervisors some numbers and some figures and some background to make decision-making easier for them. I’ve set a due date of March 20th for the department heads to present budget amendment requests to me, in which I will get them together after that time and present them to the Board of Supervisors in a comprehensive format. I plan on participating in the 2001 Community Leadership Program offered by the Chamber of Commerce, and I talked with Lori Bailey and she’s going to give me the application on June 1st, and I’m going to proceed with that.

Lehman: OK.

Horne: That’s my report for today.

Lehman: All right. Thanks for the update. I think that with this budget summary tries to emphasize a little bit what we did in our budget presentation and our public hearing, the difficulty the departments have. We ask them to start their budget process 6 months before their fiscal year even starts, and 18 months before it actually ends, to predict revenue as well as expenses. It’s very difficult. Sometimes there are hiccups in the system, here, and they do have to make changes, and then in some way they are good, and we have money go back to the general fund. Good news and bad news. But it’s a quite a challenge, and we appreciate the job the department heads do, along with Jeff working through that. OK. Any questions or comments for Jeff on that?

Lehman: Next item, County Attorney, any reports or inquiries?

Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: No.

Lehman: OK. Next will be business from the Board of Supervisors. We have Discussion/Action Needed on the Proposed Annexation of Clear Creek West Annexation District into the City of Coralville. Rick Dvorak?

Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: There are representatives here from the City of Coralville.

Lehman: OK. Would they care to come forward and identify themselves, and maybe just give us a little heads up of what this involves, and what Johnson County’s involvement may or may not be?

Coralville City Attorney Don Diehl: I’m Don Diehl, Coralville City Attorney, and Mayor Jim Fausett is seated in the back. We don’t let him speak any more than is necessary.

Lehman: I know the feeling.

Diehl: City Engineer Dan Holderness, who, when you are ready, will start the conversation on it.

City Engineer Dan Holderness: All right. I’ve got a map I’d like to pass out here, if I could.

Lehman: OK.

Holderness: I believe that you’ve probably been made aware of this here, before, but just to refresh your memories. This is an area that we’re proposing to annex on the south and the west sides of our current boundaries. It’s an area abounded on the west by I-380, the north, essentially by the Iowa Interstate railroad tracks, and on the south it’s a boundary based on some property lines, some parcels that the city has purchased on the south side of I-80, in the area of Deer Creek Road and 340th Street. The 3 parcels, the city parcels A, B, and C have been purchased for the Clear Creek Green Belt Corridor Preservation Project, which we are undertaking. So, our intent is to ask that these be annexed, as well as the adjoining interstate’s right-of-way’s into the city.

Lehman: Can I ask what the current zoning is on most of this property? Is it ag now, or is it…?

Dvorak: Correct.

Lehman: OK. And your intended use? Or, if you know what it might be, or if you could…

Holderness: Sure. The area north of I-80 and east of 380, our intent would be to bring it in as an industrial zoning, a light industrial, and we would create an industrial park, the owners of that property would create an industrial park in that area. And again, the area south of 380, labeled as City Parcels A, B, and C, are in our Clear Creek Greenbelt Corridor Preservation, so they would be essentially left as green space, as open space. Our long-term goal is to do maintenance and enhancement of the wetlands and the potential facilities, and we also intend to extend a trail through that area, to connect the Coralville/Iowa City area and proceed on out west to connect onto Tiffin, and eventually on out to Kent Park.

Lehman: Have any questions for the representatives from the City of Coralville? Mike, did you have a question on behalf of the Secondary Roads?

Gardner: Yes, this is just an issue that I brought up the last time that, our concern that the annexations of city parcel A only goes to the north right-of-way line of 340th street, and we would ask that it be taken on down to the center line of 340th street.

Lehman: Then some type of road management agreement be made of a portion, or you trade off, something like that, but some discussion needs to…

Gardner: Yes, Dan and I have already talked that over. We’re going to try to get together and hook beyond just this annexation, and look at the big picture, and try to come up with something we can both live with on that.

Lehman: OK.

Harney: The County property involved there, that 3.8 acres. That’s the bridge, and what else… How’s that going to affect us, there?

Gardner: That would be all the County right-of-way, the road, the bridge, and everything, would be taken into the city limits through this annexation, that part of Deer Creek Road.

Holderness: So then it would be ours to maintain from this point forward.

Harney: OK.

Lehman: Does the…what Pat, I think, is probably getting at is this the bridge the County replaced a few years ago?

Gardner: Yes, in the mid ‘70s, actually.

Lehman: OK. That long?

Diehl: And we thank you for that.

Harney: I can’t take the credit for that.

Neuzil: All the residents, there’s not really that many, but they’re all voluntarily part of this, or how does that work?

Holderness: All of the parcels have asked for voluntary annexation except for one parcel, the Bigelow parcel…

Neuzil: In the corner…

Holderness: …identified in the northwest corner, there, that parcel. They initially had talked about requesting voluntary annexation, and then chose not to, so, because we can’t create an island, we have to then take that parcel in under the 80/20 rule in the State Code.

Neuzil: Right. And they’re aware of that?

Holderness: Yes. They’ve been notified with a proper notification.

Neuzil: OK.

Diehl: If I might address the roadway right-of-way issue presented by Mike. We really don’t have a problem with that, the problem is we don’t own it, and we can’t find out who does. We had to have the notices go out properly, and we’ve done that, and we have development imminent and pending on part of this, so we wanted to go forward with it, but… The mayor is here to lend weight to my statement, I believe the City has no objection to taking to the center of the road, but we don’t know who would give us that. We have to give them notice for annexation, and it appears to be no man’s land. The one that doesn’t show as well on yours, but I think River Products is a section line boundary, and ours is the northerly right-of-way line, and those 2 leave some no man’s land in between as that road curves through there. I don’t know whether Pat’s office, how they feel about a quitclaim of the center line of the roadway, or what have you, back to the city, and we could perhaps accomplish it that way. But we can’t forward at this time with that, because it hasn’t been included in the present notification, and everything. We’d like not to have that stop us at this point, but I would, I believe, go on record saying that we have no objection to a joint jurisdiction in the center line of that road if you can figure out a way to get it to us. I toyed with maybe considering trying to work with River Products and quitclaim back and forth to each other everything, each side give everything from the other. I don’t know how that would necessarily work, and I’m not sure they would want to get involved in it, because it would clearly give away some property they have, and would also imply that they own some outside of that boundary, too. And maybe the same thing would apply to the County. We will take to the center of the road with our annexation, providing you can tell us who’s going to consent to that. And we have the same problem with the statutory provision, that certification, if the County certifies to the state board as such, but I’m not sure you’ll want to do that without any knowledge as to who the owner is. But, most importantly, I think, is we will certainly cooperate with you and we will take to the center of the road at any time that can be accomplished, and request that that not delay these proceedings.

Lehman: I think we’re all understand that situation, that you can’t notify or take something if you don’t know who the owner is.

Holderness: Yes. We’ve done, some of the people in Don’s office have done research back to the turn of the century, and the parcel that we bought was labeled City Parcel A, through all the land transactions back to that time, have listed the parcel boundaries to the north right-of-way of 340th Street. So, we’re just not able to determine who owns the north half of the road.

Lehman: OK.

Diehl: Some of that was even before my time, if you can believe that.

Lehman: OK. Well, I think we can keep doing some investigation, but I don’t, I guess my personal opinion is that that doesn’t need to be something that’s going to hold up your application.

Holderness: OK. We would appreciate that.

Diehl: And I would ask, if I could, Mayor Fausett, is that your understanding of the city’s position, that we would in fact go to the center line at any time that’s made available to us?

Fausett: Yes, that’s been the consensus of the council.

Lehman: I don’t know how much time our legal department needs to spend on that. It sounds like you’ve spent quite a bit of your time and resources trying to come up with something, and I think maybe that it’s something that will clarify itself later on, as you continue to grow, maybe. A couple of these areas out here were mentioned in Johnson County Council of Governments yesterday, and one was Deer Creek, along with conjunction of the replacing of the railroad viaduct there at the Iowa softball diamonds. They were worried about how long that would have to be closed, and I think it was pointed out that only maybe 48 hours to replace that structure. They were worried about they’d need to improve Deer Creek as a detour, and that didn’t seem to be a problem.

Holderness: Yes, that’s true. I think we’re going through the design and the redesign of that structure, actually, and hope to let that either in August or October through a DOT letting. The consultants tell us, as well as we’ve talked to some contractors, that there’s a couple different ways to construct that bridge, but it appears that the First Avenue/Mormon Trek Boulevard street portion would only have to be closed for up to a day or 2, maybe a couple of different times. But it was very limited time, number 1 that the railroad wants us to have their facilities closed, and basically it’s just a matter of when you would set that bridge in place, you’d have to close the street. So, it would be very limited.

Lehman: OK. The other thing that was mentioned by Glenn Potter, the mayor of Tiffin, was the alignment of the trails. As soon as you know where you’re at, they wanted to visit with you, so that they…

Holderness: Sure.

Lehman: ….rather (inaudible) often

Holderness: That’s right.

Lehman: But I think they want to work in conjunction with you, so that their project would be able to proceed without any problems, too.

Holderness: That’d be great. We’ll be glad to work with them, and make sure everything lines up.

Lehman: OK. Great.

Harney: I think R.J. has a question.

Lehman: R.J., did you have some input?

Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: Yes. Back to the road issue on 340th and the County Engineer’s concern. I was wondering if, and this is an application that you saw first in April of 2000, I believe, and the city trying to work with River Products as part of the annexation, has revised this. So that’s when we seen it, and Mike’s made his comments to you. The ownership of the road, I was wondering, when I have problems finding out about ownership of roads or history of roads, I go to the Auditor’s road plat books. It has a history of when that road was created and ownership and coming through and the right-of-ways and when they changed or whatever. That might be one avenue for the City to determine. It may not, but it may help them with that. The other was, I was wondering why we can’t just take the north half right-of-way under the 80/20 provisions of voluntary annexations. I’m sure that would be less than 20% of the ground taken in. They could take it as a voluntary annexation involuntarily.

Lehman: The road portion.

Moore: Yes.

Lehman: But, I think what they’re saying is they’re not sure who they’re going to take it from.

Holderness: We’d do that except that’s the only way to give notice.

Lehman: They don’t identify who…

Moore: That’s why I mentioned the road plat books downstairs. That might help.

Diehl: We’ve been through that.

Holderness: We’ve been through that actually, RJ.

Moore: Oh, OK.

Holderness: We tried those and weren’t able to resolve one of the (inaudible) on that.

Moore: I think if you remember a year ago, Rick told you, our Zoning Administrator, told you that the annexation request is in compliance with our Fringe Area Agreement with them and we expect this and to protect the Clear Creek Watershed, that’s a good thing. But, I know Mike has concerns about liability of roads and that’s one way to do it.

Hudson: Before the revision, of course, we had both sides and it didn’t matter. Now, that’s not correct anymore.

Lehman: OK. I don’t know if we need to make a formal response of this next week. I know a lot of times we’ll write a letter either pro-con. But, I think maybe we’ll put this back on. I don’t know if there are any further developments, but I’m content the way it is. I think you’ve done your homework. It seems to be in order.

Diehl: We obviously have some more things in the future coming up. The impression we wanted to leave with you is one of cooperation.

Lehman: OK. I appreciate you coming over. Thank you very much.

Neuzil: Thank you Mayor Fausett for being here as well.

Lehman: Next item is Minutes Received from the East Central Council of Governments for February 22, 2001. Those were circulated to see those.

(Continued in Part 3)