Lehman: Our next item. Zoning people on the way? OK, I can go ahead and introduce this, and I think they’ll be here shortly. It’s business from the Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator, in regards to April 9, 2001 notice from Steve Greenleaf, the Tiffin City Attorney, and discussion regarding certain annexation territories of the City of Tiffin. We have Rick Dvorak, our Planning and Zoning Administrator, and R.J. Moore, Assistant for Planning and Zoning.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: As you’re aware, I did drop off…

Lyness: Steve Greenleaf was here.

Lehman: Yes, he was here. He stepped out. We ought to make sure that he’s…

Dvorak: We told him it started in about a half an hour.

Lehman: OK. We’ll make sure he’s on hand.

Dvorak: He’ll be right in.

Lehman: OK. I’m sure he’s heard all the information.

Dvorak: You want me to wait, then, or…

Lehman: Yes, (inaudible)…unless you want to give some, just, general information that he’s well aware of, too. There he is. OK.

Thompson: There he is.

Dvorak: Again, the City of Tiffin does have another proposal for annexation, very similar to the proposal that the Board instructed staff to, I guess, share their concerns and objections with the Iowa Development Board. At that time, they did, they, meaning the Iowa Development Board, did deny the request of the City of Tiffin for annexation. You instructed us to meet with the City Council to come up with a proposal on something that the county staff and the City of Tiffin could live with, and the areas that were still of contention, we could work with them and the City of Coralville to try to resolve that. At that time, their staff and us, and we met with some of their Council, and the Zoning Commission, and came up with what we thought was a reasonable approach for annexation. They then chose not to do what we agreed upon, and what they’ve submitted now is very similar to that proposal back in late December or early January, I believe it was, but they have cleaned it up quite a bit. Some of the concerns of the Iowa Development Board have been addressed by the City. This proposal still has some things that your staff is concerned with, and some of the public is concerned with. So, my purpose of being in here this morning is to share with you our concerns, if you’d like us to, and to see if you’d like us to continue to share our concerns with the Iowa Development Board and the City of Tiffin, or basically let the City of Tiffin do as they are requesting. We are asking for your direction, and if you’d like to, we do have a draft letter that we could highlight. It’s just a draft that we wrote up for discussion purposes. The City is meeting on this application Monday night with the Council, and I believe, Planning and Zoning. Steve’s here to correct that, if I’m incorrect. We would, if you agreed to have us go ahead and not support this request, we would share with you a letter that we would like to send to the City, or if you prefer, we will not get involved with the meeting on Monday night, but we will wait until we see what the City of Tiffin does at their meeting Monday night, and come back to this Board. If you’d like, we could request the City to be represented at that meeting. There are representatives here today from the City of Tiffin, and there are at least one person that is very concerned about the annexation of her parent’s property, that would like to speak to you at some point this morning. We’re here to see what you’d like your staff to do.

Lehman: Just for clarification, the City Development Board has final say. We usually make a comment in our observations of these, when they fall within a 2-mile radius of another community, in my understanding.

Dvorak: Again, part of the reason you recommended your staff to object to that previous request was that it was in conflict with the Fringe Area Agreement that was in place at that time. They have submitted a new Fringe Area Agreement; our Zoning Commission acted upon that not last Monday, but the previous Monday, recommended 5 to zero to deny their request and their new proposal. That is on your agenda for the 9th?

Horne: 10th of May

Dvorak: 10th of May. We probably don’t want to discuss that this morning, because that’s not really on the agenda.

Neuzil: It’s not on the agenda, but it certainly has a lot to do with my decision…

Dvorak: OK.

Neuzil: ….simply for the fact that if it is in violation of the contract, then it makes it very difficult for me to support the measure. The timing of this, what is the plan for, in regards to Tiffin?

Dvorak: Again, the City has set their agenda for Monday night to discuss their annexation.

Thompson: Well, I think we have to consider this in the light of the existing Fringe Area Agreement, don’t we?

Stutsman: My, and not just this annexation, but my support in the Board making a response to the City Development Board concerning any annexation is that the Board has worked very, very hard in developing a planful approach to development in the unincorporated areas of Johnson County. We have spent hours up here debating, and discussing, and finally adopting a County Land Use Plan that we adhere too. I guess when an annexation comes in that is out of sync with what we have worked very hard to put in place, I think we have a obligation to respond to that to the City Development Board. By not responding, by not saying anything, to me, says to the City Development Board that we think this is OK, that this is no big deal, that this is just A-OK. I don’t think that’s what we want to say. This is not in agreement with what we have put down as what we want for development in the rural areas. I guess I continue to believe that, because not only is it an issue that we’re doing here in Johnson County, but across the State of Iowa, with the discussions on a state level about urban sprawl, about annexations by cities, and I’m think particularly in the Des Moines area. If nobody stands up and says this is not what the community wants, then the City Development Board doesn’t hear from the local people, and so by not hearing, they just think nobody has any concerns or thoughts, or whatever. That’s my reason for wanting to respond to these, especially when it’s just obviously against what we have adopted through our Fringe Area Agreement with Tiffin and our County Land Use Plan. I just think it’s appropriate that we do that.

Dvorak: If you’d like, R.J. can hit some of the highlights of your staff’s concerns, if you’d like us to do that at this time. Again, not reading a letter, but just the highlights of some of our concerns and they’re similar to the previous application for annexation.

Lehman: Would the Board be interested in hearing this, basically critiquing the land plan?

Thompson: The parcel south of Interstate 80 on the east, we objected to because it’s agricultural land and there was no plan by the City of Tiffin to extend infrastructure out there in the foreseeable future.

Dvorak: Correct.

Thompson: So, what I’d really like to hear your comments on is the Parcel 3 and Parcel 4, which are reconfigured from the other plan. I don’t believe that we objected to them before, but the City Development Board had some comments which would probably add to our deliberations.

Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: I think this revised annexation agreement, as Rick pointed out to you, did clean up 2 concerns that the City Development Board had, and they were Parcel 4, the extension of the annexation south of the Interstate wasn’t wide enough; there was only 33 feet. It appears that they’re taking all the right-of-way in, and that would give them the necessary…meet the minimum requirements to make the connection for annexation. The other was a flag-type parcel that was left out on the north side of the Interstate, and I think that was the McDonald’s property. They have now included that as part of this annexation. So those…and we didn’t have objections to Parcel 4 down here, and bringing 3A made sense, to have…for the city to have control of an interchange of a major interstate is reasonable. We didn’t have any objections to that.

Thompson: And there was plans to put infrastructure there?

Moore: Yes. I believe…well, they’re running sewer to the west, to IDOT rest areas, and I believe that they’ll be able to run their sewer down here and service this area as well. So, that did make a lot of sense there, because they had been extending the resources to go out to the IDOT. I think what Rick’s talking about, basically, is, as Supervisor Stutsman noted, is, the last few years, our new Land Use Plan, there’s a couple of policies in there that you’ve adopted, and as a Board over the last 2 and half years, has pursued. That is, working with Fringe Area Agreements with our cities, controlling sprawl and uncontrolled development, and inter-governmental cooperation, and that’s what the 28E agreements are based on. It’s a bigger thing than just local and parochial. It’s a regional concept that we’re after, and as Sally noted, it’s at the state level, too. What we’ve done is, in this letter that we’d liked to have shared with you today, but I’ve been gone for awhile and Rick asked me to review this, and I wanted to strengthen up part of this letter that we want to share with you. But we looked at the 1990 census data and we looked at all of our cities, and what we did was we looked at a density, based on the land mass controlled by each city and population, we looked at densities. Tiffin, in 1990, had a population of 460 people with 1.3 square miles. That levels out to 364 people per square mile. Coralville had 1,300 per square mile; Iowa City had 2700; Oxford had 1,800 people per square mile; Tiffin’s was the 2nd-lowest in the county, only to Shueyville. That’s one of the things we’re talking about when we talk about sprawl; it’s low-density, inefficient, economical development. We’re trying to encourage working together with our cities to develop at higher densities. That’s not just here; that’s across the state and across the country. Those are big issues all over the country, especially in big metro areas like Minnesota. We’re developing at much lower densities. What we’ve looked at now is with annexations from 1990 to 2000, what we think we have is that they have approximately with this proposed annexation, 3.32 square miles now would be within the corporate boundaries, and based on 2 populations, the 2000 census that’s 975 people, or Tiffin’s proposal at 1,180. At the 975, the density is, per square mile, is 293 people. At Tiffin’s estimate of population, 1,180, it’s 355, which is still 9 people per square mile less than they had in 1990. That’s the kind of development our staff has been fighting against on behalf of the Board. We felt that the Board didn’t want that kind of development by our cities. That’s some of the things we’ve had… Again, that’s sprawl. I don’t know how other to tell you; that’s sprawl development. That’s too low. Then, of course, there’s the other concerns about the ability to provide the service, is the proposed progression here of this. They leave, you notice, the big center piece out, so they have to use our roads, 340th Street, there. If they did develop over in Parcel 19 and Parcel 16 at a full build-out, it would put more traffic on 340th Street, going either west or south on Kansas. That turns into Kansas, right? That would exceed, at a 4 or 5 units per acre residential, you’re talking about thousands of trips a day on a gravel road that we’ve already adopted standards that say 300 is the maximum, without needing improvements.

Dvorak: We understand that some traffic will obviously go north, on Jasper Avenue. But we also still understand that some people will still use Kansas and 340th Street. I think that would be a major concern to the county, if we were required to do an upgrade of that for city property. It seems unreasonable for us to do that. Our proposal to them was to take an annexed land to the east of 80 and continue to that area, not just go take that area. Also, I think, again, one of the people that live in that area wanted to speak to you about what’s been told to her on Parcel 4. As you’re aware, we’ve not been advised of what is anticipated on any of this property. Nothing. If we understood what their plan was for all the property to be annexed, this is a parcel of, I think, 400 acres or more…

Moore: 600.

Dvorak: If we had a better idea of that, we might be able to support this, if there was a plan for growth in the area. We’ve been told that there may be as many as a 400-unit residential development on Parcel 4. The Fringe Area Agreement currently says that that area is to be used for Commercial/Industrial. I don’t know; that’s hearsay, and I think the lady that owns property in that area can probably address that more than I can.

Lehman: OK. We’re in informal, if anybody had any other questions at this time for Rick and R.J. I guess I’d invite, maybe, officials of the City of Tiffin if they’d like to make some comments. If not, open up to residents.

Tiffin City Attorney Steven Greenleaf: You want to go ahead and hear from the residents first? I’d be happy to (inaudible).

Lehman: OK. If you’d like to come forward and identify yourself to the microphone here. Good morning.

Joyce Rossie: Hello. My name’s Joyce Rossie, and 1 week ago, today, I guess, we were informed by Certified Mail that our land was up for involuntary annexation. You’ll have to bear with me; I’ve only had 1 week to prepare. I am here to represent the interests of the Betsy Hagges Trust, concerning the Parcel 3A and the Tiffin annexation. I would everyone here to know that our family and our attorneys absolutely oppose any attempt to annex our farmland from Johnson County to the City of Tiffin. As I stated, we were just notified last week. The parcel being considered really makes no logical sense, in my opinion. This parcel, 3A here, is the one that I’m speaking about. If we wanted a parcel of ours to be incorporated into the City of Tiffin, I would think that we would want the parcel across the interstate, which, we have a farm, and buildings, which we could then take advantage of some of the utilities, water, sewer, and that. The only benefit I can see to this is for, to annex Parcel 4, which is the Washington Park Partners, and, of course, to create an additional tax base for Tiffin. One of the criteria that was mentioned in the annexation was to create a more uniform borders. If that is the case, then why is the north side of our farm and the Larry Ryan property excluded from the annexation? It is only 1 of 5 of our parcels of our farm that is being proposed for annexation. In that sense, it seems kind of ludicrous that we would be paying taxes to the City of Tiffin and also to the county, when, in effect, Tiffin will be providing no services to us for that piece of property. Our farmland, under the wishes of my husband’s grandmother, stated that that farm shall always remain as that, a farm. In her will, it states that it shall never be developed and remains in the family for at least the next 60 years. During that time, it will remain farmland, and it cannot be sold or developed. So, there will never, ever be a development on 3A. Initially, when the first annexation went through, it is my belief that they thought they could get through with the 35 feet, and they could not; it was denied by the City Development Board. Then, they approached us, asking if we would sign an agreement for 50 feet, so that they could have their parcel annexed without incorporating ours. We denied that. When we turned them down, it was at that time that Tiffin decided to annex our parcel 3A. Several concerns that our family has is water and sewer, of course, with the fire in Tiffin, there wasn’t enough water supply for them. How do they propose to increase that enough to support this whole annexation? Our land, part of our land is in the 10-year set aside. Is that going to affect us in any way? Will we have to repay some of those dollars that we are now trying to take advantage of? Hunting is a big thing with my son and my husband. This is our farm; they hunt, bow-hunt and shotgun hunt. I was told that an ordinance was passed so that you could hunt on your land. However, I feel that ordinance is simply a feel good ordinance. It also states in there that you have to obtain permission from a tenant within 200 yards of your property. So, as this sets now, through the County, they are willing, as best I understand, to go along with low density in Parcel 4. We have heard that there will be 400-500 units placed on Parcel 4. I am sure, which I’m sure all of you are, too, that one of those people in that 400 or 500, or even if it’s low density, if they object to us hunting on our own land, we will not be able to. Something’s wrong, here. Roads are another concern. Part of the roads, here, would be under the city annexation. Across the road is county. Is the city going to provide half of the road, the county’s going to provide the other half of the road? That doesn’t make logical sense. The high density would be advantageous to Tiffin, because it would definitely increase their tax base, give them more money for sewers, water, and other entities that they need to provide once they get this land annexed. I am here today to plead with you, the Johnson County Supervisors, to help me and the other people in this area fight this annexation, which I think you all know is just an attempt to annex one piece of property, and that is Parcel number 4, and to increase the tax base for Tiffin. Since they are now mandated to find money to provide water and utilities for the subdivisions they have already annexed, I don’t want to pay taxes for services I will never use or even be able to use. As for utilities, on the south side of the interstate, we’ve already granted easement rights for the rest areas. But, this diagram is very small, I apologize. You go down to the edge of the interstate, and if number 4 is annexed in, we will have to, I suppose, give them easement rights, and if we don’t give it, they will be able to condemn our land. They will go over 2 parcels of ours that are not annexed, plus one parcel of ours that they are proposing to annex. So, here again, they will be going out and over our land, which will never be developed, into one parcel of land who wants to be developed. One last point I wanted to make was Parcel 4A does have a section here that is light industrial, and sometime back when they were doing work on the interstate, Affordable Asphalt Plant was installed there. What they did when the asphalt plant came in was they did some grading and that. Well, prior to that, the waterways drained equally from the 2 properties and drained to the drainage ditches. Since that time, those waterways have been diverted, and it goes exclusively onto our property, now. In addition to that, during that time, they had heavy trucks going in and out of that driveway, which was a community driveway, the land here, it was half this side, half our side, and we shared that driveway. Sometime during that construction period, that driveway was moved. That was moved so that it was 100% on Parcel 4. My father-in-law contacted the DOT and said, we have a problem here. They said, oh no, no, no, you’ll always have easement rights. Well, is this one more indication that it’s different rules for different people? I don’t know. Can we move it back the way it was? I don’t know. I know I’ve brought a lot of issues here, but we are very, very, very concerned. The farm has been farmed in our family since about 1973. My husband’s grandmother bought the farm in the 50s. It’s been a farm way before that. As I stated, in my husband’s grandmother’s will, this land will never, ever be developed. It is mandated by that. Those are my concerns. I would also encourage for you to ask the Zoning or to help us approach the City Development so that if they want to annex this, but let’s lop off here. You are not creating a solid boundary here. If you were creating the solid boundary, you would include the other part of our farm, which we don’t want to do, anyway, but they can’t make us do that, because that would be more than they can involuntarily annex at one time. If you have any questions, or would like to contact me, my name is Joyce Rossey. Or you can contact either of our attorneys, Bill Shellworth and Bill Prowell of Shuttleworth and Ingersoll in Cedar Rapids. Did you have any questions?

Harney: Is that entire parcel, 3A is it, what you’re talking about, or a portion of it?

Rossie: Yes, entire 3A. Was there any questions?

Neuzil: No, just as a reminder, again, though, that the fact that what the Board of Supervisors say or don’t say, it’s up to the City Development Board at the state level that’s going to make this decision.

Rossie: Right. I was just hoping for some positive input from your Board.

Neuzil: Yes. Thank you.

Lehman: Thank you very much.

Rossie: Thank you.

Lehman: Any officials from Tiffin like to make some comments?

Greenleaf: Hi, I’m Steve Greenleaf. I’m the City Attorney. With me is Karen Dils, a City Council member. The present application for annexation is very similar to the one that was brought before the City Development Board in February. As a result of what we heard from the City Development Board, we made a couple of adjustments. One is, that the City Development Board, the feedback that we took away from that meeting and their denial of our request, I believe was on a 3-2 vote. They did not like the flagpole design that the City had used to draw this annexation with the intention of avoiding having annex any non-consenting owners. So, this time this annexation does include intended annexation of non-consenting owners. That is that group, the McDonald property and some other smaller properties on the north side of the interstate. The other area of non-consenting annexation is the Hagus Trust Property that Miss Rossi juste addressed you about. It was kind of a last minute thing that we realized that the road adjoining parcel #4, which sought voluntary annexation was an easement and not a County right-of-way and therefore there was only a 33-foot link. The City Development Board actually had no choice. Without the requisite 50-feet required by statute they could not approve that annexation. So, as Miss Rossi indicated why we looked at kind of a minimal application on a voluntary basis from them, not receiving that what we tried to do is draw consistent boundaries as required by the Code. So, that’s why I believe what you find is a parcel 3A, the area that is subject to our non-consenting annexation is not the entire portion of their property but simply lined up along the section line to conform with parcel 4. The area of contention, I think, is still the same as what we talked about last February. That is whether the area in what I call the southeast corner of the proposed annexation ought to be annexed at this time. The City of Tiffin, through it’s engineering firm, Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Council, discussed this extensively with Mr. Moore and Dvorak. Their intent was to put that off until more development would occur. The necessary support and pressure for annexation would require however the City Council felt that the landowners, and all of these landowners that we are talking about in the southeast parcel, still desire to be annexed, still believe that that is the appropriate way for them to go. The City Council decided to go ahead and honor their wished and go ahead and proceed with that as part of the application. I think that is all I have at this point.

Tiffin City Council Member Karen Dils: I would just like to point out that this parcel 3A, currently is provided with the City of Tiffin, Fire Department and the volunteer First Responders, and they will continue to be serviced by them if they annex. So, that does not change any. As far as the taxes for parcel 3A, it doesn’t actually bring any more taxes into our City, because if they continue to farm this area, we do not charge any… We have no tax amount that comes through the City off of their tax. Their tax actually goes down versus being in the County. So, there is no incentive for us to annex them just for tax purposes if they continue to farm.

Greenleaf: I appreciate Miss Rossie had spoken with me earlier and I understand the families concerns and their wish to honor the will and I don’t believe that annexation of that portion of their land would interfere with their continued use of it as agricultural land. I do not know of any particular plans for parcel 4. Washington Park Partners owns it. I believe it is their intention to develop it in some way. We are annexing it. Upon annexation it would come in to the City of Tiffin with essentially the same designation as it has in the County. I have not even heard the rumors that Miss Rossie has heard. But, I think that’s what Washington Park is looking at, but I don’t think they can compel that or force that upon the property owner. I think for all intent purposes, Parcel 3A would remain the way it is and be used according to the family wishes.

Neuzil: I have a question, getting back to the timing. When do you anticipate, at this point, would you be bringing your proposal in front of the City Development Board?

Greenleaf: I believe it’s May 11th we’ll be on the agenda. That’s the Thursday.

Dils: May 10th.

Greenleaf: May 10th. I’m always a day off.

Neuzil: OK. Do you think that… One of the points that is making this difficult for me has to do with the Fringe Area Agreement, in the sense that we have not clearly identified these growth areas, what kind of development should occur in certain areas and have an agreement. Not only on those, but also on the roads. That’s been my concern kind of from the get go. It’s going to be extremely difficult, not impossible, to try to make arrangements to update our Fringe Area Agreement with you by that date. Is that something that you think the City Council is interested in doing or does it really matter?

Greenleaf: The City Council has sent a proposed revision out and I believe that’s what the Planning and Zoning Commission looked at and didn’t like and we’ll be eventually coming to you folks. It does not appear that that would be concluded by this date. I know this is something the City Development Board indicated that they wanted to encourage very much. What I told them up there and would tell them again this time is, we are, for the most part, in agreement. But there is this area of contention on the southeast corner as to whether that’s appropriate at this time or not. So I think, even though there is disagreement between your Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council as to what the appropriate Fringe Area Agreement is… Again one thing I would want to emphasize to you folks is, and I think on behalf of the City, the area of contention is relatively limited. It may be important, but it’s not a huge area. I think for the most part we understand where things are going and we appreciate the support the County is giving and the realization. For instance that the interchange does provide a very valuable tax base for the City of Tiffin and that is where development seems imminent and it’s important for us to be able to take advantage of that.

Lehman: OK. When you mentioned non-consenting, the description of 3A and the McDonald Property, basically that falls under the 80/20 as we know it.

Greenleaf: Yes.

Lehman: If you take in 20% of the whole proposed area, if they are non-consensual.

Greenleaf: Right. There is voluntary and then there is involuntary. But, within the voluntary there is that 80/20 provision that allows for what we term as non-consenting. That’s a polite way of saying voluntary. We realize that and frankly, that’s why we avoided seeking to annex these parcels the first time around. The City Council was really reluctant to drag in people who didn’t want to come in, but then the City Development Board gave us a message in no uncertain terms that, if it’s going to happen for the majority, for the 80%, it’s got to happen for this. I didn’t even know it’s a full 20%, but it’s got to happen for the smaller group as well.

Neuzil: So, Parcel 10 would be the other.

Greenleaf: Yes, it’s 10 and then I think there are some smaller ones in there. But, 10 is the larger of the parcels that we would be talking about.

Lehman: Other questions for Karen or…

Harney: All the other parcels over that 18, 19, 16…that whole area is voluntary?

Dils: Yes.

Greenleaf: I believe so.

Harney: The other issue I think I heard them speak of is, I think Jasper and Kansas are actually the roads into that area other than 340th. 340th is in a U-shape around that where the County would have to maintain that. Is there any direct route out of there other than using this 340th?

Dils: Other than Jasper and Kansas?

Harney: Yes.

Dils: I don’t think so.

Lehman: Any other suggestions?

Neuzil: No. Things like that, questions like that in regards to when you are talking about the City, the County, then the City, roads are a big deal here and that’s obviously something that should be recognized.

Dils: That issue came up during our meeting that we have with Rick and R.J. We had asked them at that time that if we volunteer to take over the remaining area of 340th Street, all the way out to the interchange area, if they would be acceptable to that idea. They said no at that time. So, we were under the impression that it didn’t really matter if we took it over or if we didn’t, we’d have the same result. We had discussed that issue.

Neuzil: That’s something that probably needs to be re-discussed. Certainly in the Fringe Area Agreement we would identify those kinds of questions.

Stutsman: I think we need to decide, does the Board want to go ahead and continue to monitor this and send a letter to the City Development Board airing our concerns about it. I for one…

Thompson: Do you have our letter ready for next week on the Formal Agenda?

Stutsman: Yes.

Moore: We’ll have this draft that I was working off of today by Monday.

Lehman: Circulate it to us.

Stutsman: Then, do we want staff to go to the Monday City Council Meeting?

Dvorak: We’d be glad to go. The staff has attended a couple of meetings. I think the City is aware of our concerns. Obviously we’ll go if you prefer us to go, if Steve would like us there, for one of us or both of us to be there. I’m sure the City Council is aware of our concerns from past meetings and the Iowa Development Board and they really haven’t changed much. My only recommendation, and it’s been the recommendation since day 1 is, we have totally supported the annexation of everything north of Interstate 80. Our recommendation is to go ahead with that, Section Parcels 19, 16, 35, 37…let’s discuss those parcels. I would rather walk into that City Development Board saying, we support this application, than to have the County walk in and say, we can’t support an area which we have no need for today, for future growth for the City of Tiffin. It’s more because the people, and they know better than I do, but, my understanding is, the people who would prefer to be in the City of Tiffin than to be in Coralville. There is nothing on Coralville’s table right now to annex them. But we’re saying, go with something that staff can support, and possibly the County. I can’t speak for the Board, on the northern part of that and let’s hash out the remainder of that.

Stutsman: That’s what I would support, too. The only other reason that has come to my attention for wanting to annex it is to buy a new fire truck. To me that’s just not good land use planning.

Greenleaf: That’s not relevant.

Stutsman: That’s what Glenn Potter has said, at least twice, that they need a new fire truck and so that’s why they need to annex some more land.

Greenleaf: I think what Glenn is getting at is, annexation is an even larger issue. A larger issue beyond annexation is preservation of the Tiffin fire district. That really concerns the area south of this line or conceivably north. But, if Coralville would annex into that area…

Stutsman: They don’t get a new fire truck.

Greenleaf: Well, they lose income and the people lose service. That’s why these people are signing up.

Stutsman: You’re not the only ones that have this concern, too, with their fire districts. It’s numbers.

Greenleaf: That’s right. It gets lost. It doesn’t come back.

Dvorak: Mike, I had another question for Steve. We had a concern from a rural resident this morning. Is it not acceptable for the Development Board just to take in the necessary right-of-way to get to Parcel 4, instead of taking in part of the farm? Could you not try just for the 50 or 60 foot they want instead of taking in the whole agricultural area? That’s a question.

Greenleaf: That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer to it, what the board is. I talked a little bit about the board. Normally we think about the 80/20 rule as the avoidance of islands, but it also provides that there be uniform islands. But, in speaking with the Board and their attorney, they said, well, you want to have uniform boundary, something that makes sense. The message that we got from the last meeting was they don’t like funny shapes. Putting parcel 4 on a flagpole design was something that first of all the landowner wasn’t receptive to, but #2, potential problems with the City Development Board. If we throw another design like that back at them. So, I don’t know that it’s not possible, but it’s questionable.

Dvorak: My recollection was their concern, and I could be wrong, was that it was just 33 feet.

Greenleaf: Oh yes. It has to be a minimum of 50.

Dvorak: It has to be 50.

Thompson: Did I hear you say earlier that you approached the landowner about giving the 50 feet and were rejected and that’s why you went to annexing the whole thing?

Greenleaf: That’s what Miss Rossi said, I believe. I didn’t approach them directly on that, but somebody must have. OK, Mr. Boyd did. He represents the interests in Parcel #4.

Neuzil: What does staff feel in regards to the timeline of Fringe Area Agreement update? Can that be done by May 10th? With all of the public hearings and all of the other things that go on, I don’t.

Lehman: I think we have 2 issues. We’ve got fringe area and we also have a land plan. Sally referred to use of land.

Dvorak: Your Zoning Commission and your staff does not (inaudible) with what your proposing. So, therefore you are right. There is no way this could be done, unless the 3 Board Members voted for their proposal.

Stutsman: I’m not so sure I want to base my decision on the Fringe Area Agreement to accommodate an annexation. That’s sounding to me like what’s coming down. Let’s vote the Fringe Area Agreement so that we’re in sync with one another. I want to view them separately outside of the annexation. I want to look at the Fringe Area Agreement in the best interest of Johnson County and not to support an annexation that is on the table.

Greenleaf: What you may have, given the disagreement that we see so far in this area is, you may have the City Development Board acting as a final arbitrary, whether that is appropriately annexed. Since I think that is really the only area of disagreement that may give one side or the other a (inaudible) as far as revising a fringe area.

Neuzil: But why they are connected is in the sense of what can we as Supervisors… Could we even legally support this if it’s against the Fringe Area Agreement that Johnson County has?

Greenleaf: I would disagree with the characterization it is against it as such. This area is not in the area anticipated for immediate annexation. I don’t think it prohibits it directly. It kind of falls in a gray area.

Neuzil: So, what the question really is, is it in violation or not of our current Fringe Area Agreement.

Greenleaf: I would say no, but your side may have a different outlook on that.

Thompson: We felt that it was and we used that as one of our points in the letter to the previous City Development Board consideration.

Neuzil: Maybe we’ll have to see how we define that.

Greenleaf: Certainly, Rick and R.J. are most certainly welcome at the City Council Meeting. They have appeared and spoke very eloquently on behalf of the County’s interests. R.J. can get us a letter Monday and that can be available to the Council as well to go along with him or in lieu of him and Rick. Whatever you guys want to do. The Council is very mindful I think of your concerns and Monday is another opportunity for them to look at things, look at the concerns of Miss Rossi and her family and her family and any other landowners who wish to appear.

Thompson: We have felt pretty strongly that land that is agricultural should remain in the County until the City is willing and able to provide infrastructure to it.

Dils: That’s going to happen this summer.

Thompson: To the southeast parcels?

Dils: No, not to the southeast but to most of this area up here. I talked to Frank Snyder this morning and he is asking me, when are we going to get this in there. He is ready to start developing on the southeast corner where he wants to start his development.

Stutsman: What parcel #?

Harney: Parcel 2.

Dils: He is Parcel #2 and he said he has talked to his neighbor, Chris Berg, who is Parcel #27 and they are ready to start developing in that area. So, they are requesting services over to the… They want to begin on the east end and move towards Wombacher’s to the west. So, they need services across their property.

Lehman: Parcel 4 is the only one that basically has given any hint of change of use of land south of the interstate.

Harney: Yes. I think that is right.

Thompson: I don’t believe we had any objection to the north.

Dils: Oh no. Wombacher’s (inaudible) to change.

Harney: South.

Dils: Oh, OK. I’m sorry.

Stutsman: We disagree about the land use but I think this discussion is good for you to understand where the County is coming from and we fully can appreciate and understand where Tiffin is coming from. Like you said, maybe the City Development Board will be the final arbitrator. But, I support the Board going on record as our disagreement with this particular annexation in its entirety.

Lehman: So, we have direction for Rick and R.J. to draft a letter and circulate that? What’s the status if they want to make that available, although it won’t have been approved by us (inaudible) the City of Tiffin?

Dvorak: We would be glad to share that with Steve, Monday.

Lehman: Clarify it as being a draft.

Dvorak: Right. It’s from the staff.

Moore: Right. It’s from the staff to the Board.

Lehman: OK. (Inaudible) what we need to do for today.

Neuzil: That’s fine with me.

Greenleaf: Thank you.

Lehman: Thank you for your participation.

(Continued in Part 4)