MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MAY 3, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Report (Lehman): Attended Workforce Development Meeting; Attended ECICOG Meeting; Attended Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement Meeting; Attended Meeting Regarding Medical Examiner Department; and Attended Financial Software Demonstrations
Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:18 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MEMBER AL MONSANTO: SENIOR CENTER UPDATE
Lehman: …Senior Center update. Morning, Al.
Senior Center Commission Member Al Monsanto: Good morning.
Lehman: If you’d like to have a seat at the table there, with the microphone, maybe it’ll go better.
Monsanto: I can project pretty good. May 3rd we had our Volunteer Day for our volunteers, and there was a comment made by somebody that the Johnson County Board of Supervisors wasn’t represented there, but Carol Thompson was there.
Thompson: Actually, I wasn’t, but 2 other Board members were. I was out of town that day.
Stutsman: Actually, 3 were there, Mike and I and Terrence.
Monsanto: Well, I’m sorry, I just, you know, I just heard this second-hand. We’re setting up our 3 committees, and we’ve done away with the Council of Elders. They talked about, to up a committee about changing the name of the Senior Center so that we can attract the 50- to 65-year old group. I made a suggestion of Geezer’s Palace but it didn’t go over too well. No sense of humor. Basically, that was it. The construction on the parking garage is coming along pretty good. In fact, they said that they could park cars there, but they’re going to hold off for awhile yet, and they will keep the shuttle bus running, yet. I guess that’s about it.
Lehman: OK. Does anyone have any question of Al, or any information they’d like to tie into that, from the public? I know we heard a report from Jay Honohan last week a little bit, but I think this is since…you’ve met since then. OK. Thank you very much.
Monsanto: Thank you.
Stutsman: Thank you.
Neuzil: Thank you.
Reverend Bob Welsh: Allan, do you know, will the Senior Center parking permits be available when the parking ramp opens?
Monsanto: Well, there’s a flap over that, too. Yesterday, I was out playing euchre with some of the ladies, and one of them said that they’d come out with a policy that there would be no special spots for the senior citizens; everything would be open. The last Commission meeting that we had, I was made to understand that we were going to have a certain amount of spots allotted to the Senior Center.
Thompson: That’s true, a certain amount of spots, but not specific spots, so there will be 50 spaces reserved, but it’s what they call a hunting permit. You have to find the spot in the center, in the parking ramp after you get in there
Monsanto: Well, I’m glad to get that cleared up. I didn’t know.
Welsh: My question was different. It was, whether or not, when it opens, (inaudible) was the Senior Center permit going to (inaudible) and park in the ramp area.
Monsanto: Well, I don’t know how they set that up.
Welsh: I guess my concern is, if it starts filling up with other non-Senior Center persons and then, at a later date, you say, OK, Senior Center permit there, what the effect is going to be?
Monsanto: Well, I was wondering when they’re going to put out the permits. Generally, I think it’s the end of June that the present ones expire, and, you know, they’ll be able to go down and get a permit. I guess it’ll be decided. Thank you.
Thompson: The question would be whether somebody wants to pay $25 for a 6-month permit when there’s only a month left in the year? 2 months?
Welsh: Or whether or not the present permit, for that month…
Lehman: As long as that report from Al, I’d like to take a minute, here, to recognize Bob Welsh, who was named the 2001 Senior of Distinction. He has a nice article in the Post, which is a publication put out by the Senior Center. I believe I also saw an article in the Advertiser last night, and very well-done, and a good tribute to Bob Welsh, who I’m not sure he keeps track of which hat to wear when he gets up in the morning. Very active in the community, has a lot of good guidance, and does a lot of research, I know, for our Board, and committees and commissions that he sits on, and thank him for this very small token, I think, to recognize Bob. Thank you very much.
Welsh: I invite you all to come May 9th.
COUNTY ENGINEER MIKE GARDNER AND ASSISTANT COUNTY ENGINEER AL MILLER: RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR RECREATIONAL TRAIL PROJECT ON DUBUQUE STREET (JOHNSON COUNTY PROJECT STP-E-C052(55)--8V-52)
Lehman: OK. Next item is business from the County Engineer. We have Al Miller and Mike Gardner with us this morning. Discussion needed on the Right-of-way Acquisition for the recreation trail on Dubuque Street. Morning.
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller: Good morning.
Miller: We’ve got 2 Right-of-way contracts for the Dubuque Street rec. trail that we’re hoping to get started in full force next week. One contract with Curtis and Susan Moore for $685.69, and one with Northwood Estates Homeowner’s Association for $337.28. Basically, what that’s for is some temporary areas to do some sloping work and some fence removal.
Lehman: There’ll be more come as you’re working on more, or these are….
Miller: This should be the end of it.
County Engineer Mike Gardner: There may be one more.
Miller: There’s a possibility or one more, but…What we’re trying to do is, we don’t have the ability to condemn property for a bike trail, and we originally did the plans and put some retaining walls in to try to get by some of these places and, basically, these 2 contracts right here saved the County about $15,000, for not having to put the walls in.
Lehman: For them allowing us to do some grading work, rather than the wall.
Stutsman: Right. Really good.
Lehman: Appreciate their cooperation. What’s your timetable of starting construction on it?
Miller: We’re hoping to get started with the grading work next week. I’ve got a meeting at 9:00 in the morning out there with the contractors. The last couple weeks have been trying to get the utilities moved out of the way so we can get started. Peterson Contractors is going to be doing the grading work, and Metro Pavers is going to be doing the paving. Once the grading work is done, like with any other construction, it depends on whether how long that’s going to take, but they’re thinking about a month to get the grading work done, and then about a week to pave it.
Thompson: And you’re starting at the south end?
Miller: Um, possibly, yes. There are a couple of other issues that we’ve got to get straight with River Products. Right now, their easement for the memorial that they came in and brought to you. Their easement is being finalized as we speak. So, we’re not going to get started in there until that’s finalized.
Lehman: Do you want to know when you can go over and put your initials in the cement? Is that why you’re asking.
Lehman: Keep your eye on her.
Stutsman: But it sounds like, by the middle of the summer, then, people are going to be able to use that.
Miller: We’re hoping to be done by the 4th of July.
Stutsman: OK. I hate to give expectations for people. It all depends on the weather, and how that goes.
Miller: Yes, exactly. Exactly.
Thompson: Well, all the people in the neighborhood are really excited about this.
Miller: Well, good. Good. I’ve had a number of people pull over and talk to me while we’ve been doing some staking work out there, and have been excited about it.
Lehman: OK. So, we’ll have this on formal action next week, to approve those.
Gardner: Just for your information, too, you may be getting some calls about the stakes that are out there, and the stakes that are out there are not centerline of the trail. They are offset, and they’re offset not a constant distance even. They’re variable, so…
Stutsman: So the stakes don’t mean anything, right?
Gardner: The stakes mean something, but they aren’t the centerline of the trail, or anything.
Lehman: A reference point, maybe.
Gardner: Yes, right.
Lehman: You can’t put them in the middle, because that’s where you’re going to do the work.
Gardner: Exactly, yes.
Lehman: You can start a measurement or you can do your measurements from…
Miller: Yes, and 95% of it’s all staked on the road side, so don’t look at those, laugh, and think that the bike trail’s going to be right up next to the road. It’s just where we staked it for the contractor, so…
Stutsman: Good to know.
Thompson: Yes, that is good to know, because there have a lot of questions about that.
Lehman: OK. Well, we’ll put that on next week for approval. Thank you for the update and information.
Gardner: Thank you.
Lehman: OK. Next item was Mark Bulechek. I know…
Thompson: Let’s take a short break.
Lehman: Let’s take a short break, because I think our next 2, we need personnel here on our next 2, so let’s just take a short break here, and regroup, and we’ll get the people on their way up.
Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne: I'll tell R.J. they’re ready.
Lehman: Let’s take a short break, let’s try to be back at 25 to 10:00.
Recessed at 9:30 a.m.; reconvened at 9:35 a.m.
FACILITIES MANAGER MARK BULECHEK: PRESENTING RESULTS OF THE BIDS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ADDITION
Lehman: Business from Mark Bulechek, Johnson County Facilities Manager, regarding the results from the bids of the Administration Building addition. Morning, Mark.
Facilities Manager Mark Bulechek: Good morning.
Lehman: We have some bid tabulations that were, Mark had distributed a copy of those. Give us a little background and bring us up to speed on this, Mark.
Bulechek: We had 5 bids for the Administration project. The bids had a low of $263,000 and a high of $328,000. The people that, companies that bidded was Apex Construction, McComas-Lacina Construction, HES Construction, Hildebrand Construction, and Knutson Construction. The low bid was Hildebrand Construction for $263,000. I had a meeting with their construction project managers this Monday. They assured me that they could do the project for the money listed, and their expected completion time was 90 days for substantial completion and 4 months for complete, unless they run into problems. At the current time, it appears that Hildebrand has a good bid. They posted a bid bond, and I recommend taking the base bid and not taking either one of the alternates due to our budget limitations. So, that’s where I would go from there.
Lehman: OK. Our alternates were to accessible service counters, make them ADA…
Thompson: …and 2 offices in the Treasurer’s.
Bulechek: And the 2 offices in the Treasurer’s Office. If we add these alternates in, or either one of the alternates, with the architect’s fee, that pushes the total project cost over what was budgeted.
Lehman: We would be limited what we can spend, because of the…
Horne: Unless you approve more for it.
Thompson: This doesn’t include furniture either, does it?
Bulechek: This does not include furniture.
Stutsman: I wouldn’t anticipate a lot of new furniture.
Thompson: Conference table and chairs…
Lehman: Furniture for the HR.
Thompson: …and the camera and video equipment and that stuff might be expensive.
Stutsman: I would have thought stuff was, the camera and video, and stuff?
Bulechek: No, that is not included. All we have included is the taps in the walls for these items to be connected to.
Stutsman: OK. Well, then I guess I would say we need to go with the low bid. It looks like we’re going to have to incur some additional costs once it’s in place.
Harney: Are these ADA-accessible counters, are they something that we’re going to add in the future?
Bulechek: I’ve talked to the architect about that, and he says depending upon how you read the ADA code, since currently all of our offices that require ADA if somebody comes up and requires it, they bring them in the office and set them down to the desk. He says if you read it one way, that is complying with ADA. Another way says you have to have the actual counters for it, but since we were built before ADA and we do accommodate everybody, he felt that we probably wouldn’t have to put the counters in if we didn’t want to.
Harney: I guess one of the issues is what the cost would be for someone to come back and do it to compared to doing it while they’re in here doing the work if it’s something that’s going to be necessary.
Bulechek: Probably 50% more. The other item, too, is if we ever put another addition on the building, or different construction, the ADA counters could easily be a winter project, which might make it cost about the same.
Lehman: I thought these were pretty much, the alternates were exclusive of the addition, because the…
Bulechek: We’ve pulled these out as alternates because we felt we could drop them out of the project and not cause any problem.
Lehman: Because then these are basically in the other portion of the building.
Bulechek: Yes, they’re totally separate.
Thompson: Do you have an alternate plan for getting the offices constructed in the Treasurer’s Office?
Bulechek: No, I do not.
Lehman: I didn’t quite follow your reasoning of being 50% more. Is it just the idea that they’d be onsite and could do those?
Bulechek: Yes. I would be talking the mobilization cost.
Stutsman: What are the offices in the Treasurer’s Office? For who?
Bulechek: They were there for anticipation, if we get Motor Vehicles.
Stutsman: Oh, I see.
Horne: Driver’s Licenses.
Stutsman: Driver’s Licenses.
Bulechek: Driver’s Licenses.
Horne: Or State. Possibly, we might have DOT personnel.
Stutsman: OK. All right.
Bulechek: But, as of yet, I don’t believe we have those.
Stutsman: Yes. I was going to say, I’d just as soon deal with that when we know it, in fact, it’s… Did you tell me that, as far as the accessibility with the counters, the ideal is to have shortened counters. That’s the ideal. I thought you told me you’d talked to different department heads and they said that people are, they are able to accommodate people through clipboards.
Bulechek: Yes. Department heads said they’re just as happy bringing them into their office right now. They all have a desk set up for them. One department head says we prefer bringing them in, letting them set at a desk, we feel is more comfortable than setting out in the hallway.
Lehman: Just want to clarify, the addition that we’re doing in the building will not have any counters that need to be…
Bulechek: Right. There are no counters required in the addition.
Lehman: Kind of mutually exclusive projects here.
Bulechek: It would be nice to have if we could do it and bring it in with the budget. That is basically what everybody is thinking.
Lehman: By the time we put architect fees in there we’ll be up over our limit.
Stutsman: Well and then the furniture.
Bulechek: The architect’s fees in here leaves us about a 10 to 15,000 cushion for furniture and unforeseen obstacles that we dig in the ground and something is there we don’t realize is there.
Stutsman: Explain that. What do we have budgeted for this project?
Bulechek: 300,000. And with the architects fees in the project we’re at 285,000 right now. So the 285,000 is what we’re talking about in this project. We have 15,000 left which could be left for the cameras and the furniture for unforeseen obstacles. Lets say they’re digging for the foundation and then all of the sudden they find a big rock that was put there and nobody knows about. Then the contractor has a right to come back and ask us for more money to remove the rock.
Lehman: There may be some underground electrical for a lamp post or something. To relocate something like that is going to be an additional cost.
Bulechek: Yes. We have drawings on how it was supposed to be but who knows where it was actually put 16 years ago.
Thompson: Is the Treasurer all right with the loss of his 2 offices?
Bulechek: Yes. I talked to him yesterday morning and he said that’s just fine. He thought the alternate bid was too much money for those too offices anyway.
Lehman: OK. Do you have any more questions for Mark? We can put this on the formal meeting next week for approval. I appreciate, Mark has been with the County 3 or 4 months now.
Bulechek: 7 weeks.
Lehman: I appreciate your experience in overseeing these projects. It gives you an extra set of eyes. We didn’t have that before and I think it does save us a lot in the long run. Mark will be overseeing this project as it goes along too.
Stutsman: When is the planned start date of this?
Bulechek: The start date, the contractor will start everything in motion the day we call him and tell him its ready to go. Being here just 7 weeks I’m not quite sure what the formal date is but typically if I call him and tell him he has the bid he will start the paperwork. It won’t cost him any money. He won’t actually purchase anything until he gets formal notice.
Stutsman: Do you have a plan for shutting… Because where this is going to be is the front of the building and I’m just worried about traffic coming into the building. Has that been all laid out?
Bulechek: We have a plan that we’re thinking about. We went through this Monday afternoon. Due to my week I haven’t been able to talk to you about it. What our plan is right now which can be revised is we’ll put a sign out front and turn the rear doors to the Administration Building into the main doors during construction. So everybody that comes will go back to the main doors. They’re handicapped accessible and they’re double doors. They’re approximately the same width as what we have out front. We will leave emergency egress from the building through the front doors in case of a fire or emergency. So if we have a fire or something in the building that will still be a fire exit. But for general population usage we’ll come in through the rear doors of the Administration Building during the construction period. If we bring people in through the front its essentially a hard hat area. We’d have to have people standing out front handing them hard hats to walk in and hard hats to go out. But it will be set and we will keep the inside set of existing front doors until the new outside doors are in and lockable. That way we can still maintain security into the building.
Thompson: There’s also some adjustments to the parking. Adjustments being a euphemism for inconvenient.
Bulechek: Currently going over it with the contractor the 4 parking spaces in the front row on the South will use for the dumpster for construction materials and for his immediate construction vehicles with spare parts etc.
Stutsman: Is there any way to make sure that they keep on task with this so that this disruption is at a bare minimum.
Bulechek: When he gets the job then I can formally ask him for a construction schedule and then if he doesn’t adhere to it I can ask him why.
Thompson: What’s the time frame?
Bulechek: He thinks that he will do it in 90 days. 90 days is fairly short for all of the different trades that he has to do.
Lehman: Talk about deadlines. Are there any non-performance penalties?
Bulechek: There are no performance penalties but the specifications require him to be 100% complete by December 1, 2001.
Lehman: With a start date of 120 days before that.
Bulechek: But it’s a small enough project if he takes to that long he’s going to lose money.
Stutsman: He can’t take that long.
Lehman: It is going to be quite inconvenient for the public to have to park in those spaces.
Thompson: Especially as the weather gets bad. In the summer is one thing.
Bulechek: Basically the front doors should be in and operable by September 1, 2001. The sooner we tell him the sooner he can get started, the sooner he’ll order hardware. Our long suit in doing the project is since it’s on a short time frame is ordering all of the different hardware he has to get ordered and chipped in. If he orders the doors and they say it’s a 16 week delivery time, it’s 16 weeks until they get here. Unless we want to take some of that $15,000 and tell him to go pay a premium to get them shipped in sooner.
Stutsman: I’m real concerned about this. This is a public building that just gets a huge amount of traffic in and out of these doors. Although we do have an alternative that it’s very inconvenient. The parking is an issue. So I’m concerned that we talk about… I understand construction takes time. I’m real concerned if we’re giving him any latitude about saying well we really don’t have to have this done by December. I think we need to stress with this, this needs to get done as quickly.
Bulechek: I have told him, I see nothing longer than 90 days for construction and 30 days after that for punch out. I’m expecting the project complete by October first.
Thompson: Do they have to have the front entrance closed the whole time?
Bulechek: We’re going to work with that and we’ll keep it open as much as we possibly can.
Thompson: The accessibility problem that we have is that there’s no parking convenient to the rear doors. A person in a wheelchair really has no way to get in those doors.
Bulechek: Well we do have a sidewalk that goes around the back.
Thompson: That’s a long way though.
Lehman: I don’t see any other options.
Thompson: There aren’t.
Stutsman: That’s why I say we need to keep this moving along as quickly as possible.
Bulechek: I have told the contractor that I will watch what he’s doing every day and if he’s not here I’ll ask him why.
Stutsman: Who am I about construction but I almost wish we could have all of the stuff here before he starts the project, like the door and not say well what can I do? My door is still on backorder.
Bulechek: The tentative plan that we’ve discussed is probably hopefully for the first 30 days of his construction period, the front doors will still be useable. He’s going to try to work on either side and not effect the entrance. But we don’t know what that time is going to be. Some of it he has some demolition. So lets say for instance maybe the second week of the construction before he starts underneath he’s going to pull the roof down because he has to pull it down for new ceiling so we may close the front entrance for 4 or 5 days while he’s dropping the entrance. When the ceiling is dropped and he’s got it all cleaned up then we could open it back up again for a few days. (Inaudible). It’s going to be an on going process. If you look at it the worst case scenario the front doors would be shut for 90 days. The best case scenario the front doors would be shut out of that 90 days probably 30 days. They would not be a solid block of 30 days. They would be a few days here and a few days there when they would have to work right above the area. You realize part of the project is tearing up the entrance way coming into the courthouse.
Lehman: Will you take care of signs instructing the public where the accessibility is? You might work with our office, Jo Hogarty and Carol Peters on some press releases.
Stutsman: That’s a good idea.
Lehman: OK. Piece of cake huh?
Thompson: We just have to tell ourselves it will be nice when it’s finished.
Bulechek: Yes it should be very nice when it’s finished.
Harney: Mark could you do a little research. I just want to be sure that we’re not required to put those ADA counters in. Because if we are then we’re coming back and adding another 6,000 or so to that change.
Bulechek: I’ll ask for a formal letter on that.
Harney: But if we don’t need them that’s fine.
Thompson: It sounds like we still can provide service to people. The difference is that our accessibility for people with disabilities isn’t exactly the same as for other people. That’s kind of one of the philosophies of the ADA.
Bulechek: Actually currently from the way they’re serving its better because they get to come in and sit down at a desk and do their business. Everybody else has to stand up at the counter.
Thompson: But it sort of showcases you as a disabled person who is different from others and that is uncomfortable for some people.
Bulechek: I understand. I like to go in and sit down at a desk. I wish I could.
Stutsman: Well but a lower counter might showcase people too.
Harney: As long as we meet the requirements, that’s a concern.
Lehman: We’ll put this item on for discussion action next week in our formal. You might make sure you’re available then because we have some more questions if you have time. Large project there might be some things after communication with Mark we’ll have more questions.
Stutsman: My only concern is not having the public inconvenienced for a short amount of time as possible. Because I know how some construction projects can go and I just don’t think we can have the luxury.
Bulechek: I use the front entrance because that’s where I park out there. I really don’t want to walk around the back either. So it will be as short as I can make it.
Stutsman: That’s good.
Lehman: I wonder if we need to check with some of the property owners across the street. Some days we know we’re going to be busy with tax sales. I know people with park over there because it’s easier accessibility.
Stutsman: Mark, you might work with Carol Peters on that because she has done that in the past. I think she knows the contacts on who to contact and how she has dealt with that.
Lehman: Thank you Mark.
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY ANDY CHAPPELL: CORALVILLE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION NO. NC01-12
Lehman: Our next item is from the County Attorney and we have Andy Chappell here today for Coralville Voluntary Annexation. We've had some discussion on this and I believe Andy has an update for us.
Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell: Just briefly, the Board, if you'll recall on April 19th, our office sent out a letter to the City Development Board, essentially just laying out our opinion and involvement. I'm sure I've got copies of that letter. What we essentially said was we think that the territory to be annexed should go to the center line of 340th Street with that. It's listed as City Parcel B. That's the way the territory is defined in the Code, that's the way it's normally done, that's the way we've proposed it should be done in this instance. There was some difficulty involved there because there is a piece of ground, the ownership of which is apparently somewhat in question, based on prior histories of the properties to the north and south of it. We sent that letter, and my understanding was that they were going to try to address it. I don't know what has happened in the meantime. We did receive this letter that I think I sent you copies of, dated April 27th from Kelly Hayworth to Steve McCann, who is with the Development Board, essentially requesting to withdraw city parcels A, B and C on a portion of the County right-of-way, which run prior annexation application. That City Parcel B is the one that butted 340th to the south. So, if you look at the map that is attached to that letter, the difference is that there was a parcel which ran south of the Interstate 80 right-of-way, ran along Clear Creek. There was a parcel, which abutted 340th Street to the south, Deer Creek to the east and the Interstate 80 right-of-way to the north. That was Parcel B. That's been withdrawn, as well as I think a small parcel to the east of Deer Creek Road. All of those are actually owned by the City of Coralville at this point, I believe. So, they just simply ask that the Board withdraw them. I spoke to Steve McCann today, just to get an update on what they'll do with that request and essentially they'll consider it like they would anything else. It's not as though they are adding property, which would be more difficult. They don't have to provide any additional notice, but what they'll do is ask, I think probably for some affirmation, that this is some action from the Council or something, reaffirming the letter from Kelly Hayworth. It's not as though he was acting on his own. I'm sure he had permission. But they want… I think that usually they'll get something from the City Council of Coralville and then all they'll do is at the public hearing, which at this point I think is scheduled for May 10th, they'll just ask that the City reaffirm that that's it's intent. Then they'll consider the request to drop those things from the annexation.
Thompson: Is it this whole piece right here?
Chappell: It's not that whole piece. It's a portion of it.
Thompson: A part of it. OK.
Stutsman: Basically it's the portion that we had some questions about. The ownership of the road or the clarification…
Chappell: It's that portion and 2 other portions that the City owns.
Thompson: So, with this deletion we have no objection to the annexation, right?
Chappell: That would be your decision, but yes. I haven't heard any objections to any of the other property. I don't know. We didn't term in our letter, we didn't really call it an objection, we just were more saying, this is how legally it's supposed to be done and we think it ought to be done right the first time. You can call it an objection or not, I don't know. But, I haven't heard anything from the Board.
Lehman: I think Andy and our County Attorney have suggested some type of publication or a quick claim and I think that was… My take is that they felt that rather than hold this project up or this annexation they would address that later as Kelly's.
Chappell: That may well be the case. It does make a certain amount of sense because the properties that they are withdrawing are for the most part owned by Coralville. So, they could essentially do a voluntary annexation of those any time they wanted other than some County right-of-way. They won't likely have much of a fight from property they own when they try to annex it later. So, if in the meantime they want to address that ownership, the ownership of the road right-of-way, they can do that.
Lehman: OK. Rick Dvorak, our Planning and Zoning, he had made comments earlier. Anything you wanted to add?
Dvorak: This is in compliance with our Fringe Area Agreement. Now that they've excluded this portion of it so we would have no concerns at all on this application for annexation.
Stutsman: Do we send a letter to that effect, too, to the City Development Board saying exactly what you said, that this is in compliance with what we set out with our Fringe Area Agreement and our comprehensive Land Use Plan?
Thompson: We drafted a letter, but it raised the objections that we mentioned before, so we would have to do a new letter. Isn't the hearing next week?
Stutsman: It's the 10th.
Chappell: The 10th is what it's scheduled for. It'd be a week from today.
Stutsman: Next Thursday, yes.
Lehman: Do we need formal action to draft another letter? We’ve already taken some action.
Stutsman: Or can we just revise what we've had now that this consideration has been taken care of?
Chappell: Revise what?
Lehman: A letter to the City.
Thompson: We have a draft letter of our own that we wrote up.
Chappell: Oh, I'm sorry.
Stutsman: I would support that. I want to thank Coralville, too, for wanting to work with the County to get these things taken care of. It's these technicalities that come back to haunt you sometime down the road, so I appreciate them willing to work with the County to get this clarified.
Lehman: OK. Any other questions for Andy?
Stutsman: Thanks for your work Andy on all that digging through records and what not to try to clarify.
Chappell: That's fine.
Thompson: I bet we know a lot more about that piece of land than you ever expected.
Chappell: And ever needed to know probably.
Stutsman: You never know.
Harney: That (inaudible) question on that 340th Street, is that just a short portion of that or is that the whole distance there along…
Chappell: The whole distance of 340th? No, it's just the portion that crosses the east half of the southeast quarter of what I believe is Section 35-80-70.
Harney: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you very much. So, we'll do an updated version of our letter on that that we had talked about previously in commenting on that. OK, anything else for the County Attorney? Reports or Inquiries?
Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: No, thanks.
Lehman: Nothing under other? OK.
(Continued in Part 2)