Chairperson Thompson called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 3:05 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Thompson explained that the purpose of this work session was to further discuss the County’s 5-Year Road Construction Plan. She said the County has already had 2 meetings about this, and this is the 3rd meeting, which will allow additional input. In the meantime, Thompson said, the Board asked the Secondary Roads Department and the Planning and Zoning Department to do some additional investigation. Assistant County Engineer Al Miller said that the 5-Year Construction Program is a planning tool for the Secondary Roads Department, so that they can make budget plans and schedule upcoming work. He said that any decisions made about the 5-Year Road Plan affects both these things, and since the budget requests are made a year and a half ahead of time, they reflect the work planned to be done 2 years in the future. Miller said it is important, on large projects, that the department have enough lead time to get the necessary preparatory work finished. He said they are required to get permits from the DNR and the Corps of Engineers, to complete archaeological investigations, comply with the Department of Transportation’s letting schedule which runs a year ahead), purchase right-of-way, and go through a bidding and letting process to hire people to actually do the project.

Miller said he wanted to make a couple of comments specifically about the proposed Sharon Center Road project. This project first appeared on the 5-Year Road Plan in the FY 2000 program, approved in April of 1999, was approved in April 2000 for the 2001 plan, and also approved in April 2001 for the 2002 plan. Miller continued by saying that Secondary Roads recently held an informational meeting regarding the Sharon Center Road Project, and discussed this meeting with the Board a couple of weeks ago. He said he wasn’t sure that everyone was clear on the purpose of the informational meeting, which was to take comments from the public and the Board of Supervisors that could be incorporated into the design project of the road. Miller said the only items completed on the project were a survey, some research on the adjacent property owners, an archaeology investigation, and a preliminary horizontal and vertical alignment. Miller said that with only that information, they cannot inform people what the department’s right-of-way needs will be, or exactly how the project will affect their property. He summarized that the purpose of the informational meeting was to notify everyone that the project was in the 5-Year Road Plan, and the design process was beginning.

Miller said the outcome of that meeting was no different than other informational meetings that have been held in the past, such as those for projects on West Overlook Road, Prairie du Chien Road, Mehaffey Bridge Road, and Sand Road. He said many of the same comments have been heard at all of these meetings, including the most recent one regarding Sharon Center Road. Miller said one of the main concerns is always about increasing traffic speeds on a road after it has been improved. He said he has a traffic analysis from Mehaffey Bridge Road, with statistics before and after construction, and also some information about Prairie du Chien Road and 180th Street, the latter of which is scheduled to be worked on next summer. Miller said he also has some information gathered in 2000, from 2 different locations on Sharon Center Road. This shows the average daily traffic count and the 85th percentile speeds in each lane. Miller said they are planning to do the same thing on Sand Road, but haven’t yet gotten counters out since the construction. Miller said another comment was about the archaeological survey, and said he had spoken with the State Archaeologist’s Office. Miller said that they had told him that the site in question was well out of the proposed construction limits.

Thompson and Stutsman asked Planning and Zoning to comment on the Sharon Center Road situation and impending project. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore said that the Board of Supervisors had asked for input from the Planning and Zoning Department. Moore said that County Engineer Mike Gardner had asked the Planning and Zoning Department to identify roads that might need attention in the near and far future. Moore distributed a document explaining the department’s position on these issue, and said the document is based on past decisions by other Boards of Supervisors, historical settlement and development patterns, and the 1998 Land Use Plan. The document also contains a legend that prioritizes which roads need attention. Moore said the goal is to achieve the Board’s land use policies; in order to do that, he said, the Planning and Zoning Department feels that the Board should pay attention to these particular roads. Neuzil asked if these roads are oiled roads, that need to be upgraded? Moore said yes, with a couple of exceptions.

Moore said that Newport Road received the highest priority, with Sugar Bottom Road being 2nd. He said these roads are, for Planning and Zoning, interlocked. He said that in the North Corridor, there are thousands of acres that are still being farmed, but are zoned single-family residential. This is a result of a decision made by the County Board of Supervisors in the 1960s. Moore said that based on the Land Use Plan, which identifies the North Corridor (and the villages) as one of the few areas where rural development is allowed, this area should be developed. In fact, Moore said, Planning and Zoning believes that the County has a responsibility to allow this land to be developed, since the zoning indicates this is what the land is to be used for. The 3rd priority, said Moore, is the remaining section of Prairie du Chien, on the east side of the reservoir. He said that is a continuation of the previous Prairie du Chien upgrade, and the road should be upgraded not just for development, but also because the reservoir is a major recreational attraction, bringing outside dollars to Johnson County.

The 4th priority, Moore said, is Sandy Beach Road/Lake Manor Road. He stressed that as the department talked about these issues, they did not necessarily feel that these roads should be paved, but because of the zoned ground in the areas, in-fill development should occur. If development is cut off in these areas because the road can’t handle anymore, the Board will get more and more pressure to spread out, away from currently-identified growth areas. Moore said Sandy Beach Road/Lake Manor Road both received a high priority, and said they are thinking of these 2 roads as being worked on together. Moore identified the next road on the priority list as Scales Bend Road. He said this road is partial pavement, and seal-coat on the north part, going into the Jolly Roger Recreation Area. Moore said there is a lot of residentially zoned ground in this area that is currently being farmed, and noted that this is also a large recreational area that serves both local communities and outside visitors. Next on the priority list, Moore said, is Stewart Road, which is a dead-end seal-coat road. He said there isn’t a lot of development in this area, yet, but the road is at the 1,000 vehicles per day that is the upper threshold of seal-coat roads. He said there are some acres still available for development in the area, and there could be some redevelopment of some of the larger-lot subdivisions. Moore said the County is already servicing this area, and should in-fill the subdivisions to as heavy a density as possible.

Sharon Center Road, Otter Creek Road, and Cosgrove Road, Moore said, are ranked at the same priority level, and 7th in priority. Moore said these roads are low in Planning and Zoning’s priority list because of the County’s Land Use Plan, which identifies the villages as areas where mixed-use development and non-agricultural development will be allowed. Moore said they are not getting a lot of pressure on these areas now, but they are beginning to see some more pressure, as the Land Use Plan begins to be used and known. Moore said that they have received 3 or 4 recent applications for development in the area of Frytown, for example. Moore surmised that as it became known that the Board was not going to rezone indiscriminately in the rural areas, the villages and other targeted growth areas would begin to grow. Moore said that Dane Road already has a lot of zoned ground on it, but since the road count is only about 320 vehicles per day, more development could be allowed before the road would need upgrading. He said this is why Dane Road is rather low on the Planning and Zoning priority list. James Avenue, a dead-end road near Shueyville that comes south off of 120th Street, is last on the priority list. There is a lot of development in the area, both in the City of Shueyville and in the County, but Moore said that is an area where development would be a good thing for the County.

Stutsman said this map was important for the Board to see where it was going, long-term, and in the big picture. Lehman asked if Rapid Creek Road got any consideration from Planning and Zoning? Moore said they considered this road at first, but set it aside because it is not in an identified growth area. He said that there is no undeveloped zoned ground from 1960 in this area, and unless the Board changes its policies to identify the area as part of the North Corridor, it would not be a priority. Neuzil thought this was also true of Sand Road, and Moore agreed. Moore noted that when there are rezoning requests in the area of Rapid Creek Road or Sand Road, he tells the applicant that the Board has identified this as a rural, agricultural area of the County. Lehman asked what the procedure would be to change the policy and include Rapid Creek as a growth area; would it be with a Resolution? Moore said yes, the Board could amend the Land Use Plan.

Stutsman asked Johnson County Council of Governments Executive Director Jeff Davidson if he had any other comments on the issue of road development. Davidson said most of the planning done by JCCOG is around the urbanized area, where a lot of growth is occurring. Davidson noted there seems to be a great deal of development in the areas of Tiffin, North Liberty, Coralville, and Iowa City, and said the North Corridor area is the highest growth area. He reminded the group that the unincorporated River Heights area is larger than the City of Solon, and is the principal growth area in Johnson County. Davidson said he was attending the meeting to hear the discussion, and because he heard there is a possibility that the Board is going to amend its Road Performance Standards, which JCCOG helped the Board with a couple of years ago. Davidson offered JCCOG’s assistance with the amending process, if the Board wished.

Harney asked Davidson about Iowa City’s long-term plans for Scott Boulevard. Davidson said that Scott Boulevard is being extended from Dodge Street to Rochester Avenue, and in the vicinity of the Call Farmstead, there will be a curb-cut placed in the road, which marks the intersection that will eventually take the road over the top of Interstate 80, to intersect to the north of the Northgate Corporate Park, along Highway 1. Eventually, he said, the intention in both Coralville’s and Iowa City’s Land Use Plans is for that road to continue, in the vicinity of Rapid Creek Road, to meet Oakdale Boulevard. Harney asked if that was a long-term plan; Davidson answered yes, and guessed it is 5-8 years out at the earliest, and could be longer. Harney said this would fit with Lehman’s point, about possibly redefining this area as a designated residential area. Davidson said the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan has this area designated as a mix of residential and offices/corporate park, like what ACT and NCS have established.

Stutsman asked Davidson where the discussions are regarding Deer Creek Road? Davidson said the principal discussions regarding the Deer Creek Corridor issue have been in conjunction with the extension of Highway 965 south; this is a project in which the City of Coralville is particularly interested, and the City of Iowa City is also interested. Davidson said a JCCOG subcommittee looked at this issue, and determined that the first priority was going to be the upgrading of Mormon Trek Boulevard and the 1st Avenue Coralville Corridor. He said this is ongoing, and will presumably be finished in 2-3 years. Then, Davidson said, the intention by both municipalities is to work on the piece of Highway 965 between Highway 6 and Melrose; Coralville is already doing some exploring in Washington, D.C., to fund a bridge over the top of U.S. Highway 218. Davidson said if they are able to get some monies for this project, this corridor will develop fairly quickly. Davidson said this could be in the 3-5 year horizon. Stutsman asked if the County will be involved in this, or will there be annexation? Davidson said the County has been involved in the discussion, because most of that area is currently in the unincorporated County. He thought the intention, though, was that the project would be done in conjunction with annexations by those 2 communities, and probably built in conjunction with development in Coralville and Iowa City. Davidson said there is a ridge that runs through the area that will be the eventual corporate limits line between Coralville and Iowa City. Davidson said the decision was made by JCCOG that rather than do a lot of investment in Deer Creek Road, it would be left as a gravel road, and hopefully reduce the vehicle counts. Davidson said the vehicle count on this road is 1,200 vehicles per day, way above the County’s allowable threshold for gravel roads.

Stutsman asked Gardner about a Grid Plan for the County. Gardner answered that 10-12 years ago, with the 5-Year Road Plan process, the Board of Supervisors instructed Secondary Roads to connect paved routes across the County, both north-south and east-west, at a regular interval. Gardner said as a result of this, they designated 500th Street across the south, and 120th Street across the north. Gardner said 500th Street was on the 5-Year Road Plan for several years in the southern part of the County, but when the last section of 140th Street was ready to be paved, the question was asked, why was the County putting so much money into a road carrying a traffic count of 100-150 vehicles? Gardner reported that after upgrading, the traffic count on the road jumped to around 300 vehicles per day. Gardner said the project was ready to be let at that time; they had gone through the right-of-way acquisition, and it was upgraded and left in rock for a year, prior to paving. Gardner said it was that point when the Board was trying to decide whether or not to go ahead with the paving. He said it was eventually paved, but the Board told Secondary Roads that the department should develop another, more sensible method, for putting projects on the 5-Year Road Plan. Gardner said that was when they developed the system being used now. Stutsman asked Gardner what he thought of the grid system, and wondered if that is standard operating procedures for roads? Gardner answered that a grid system works fine where there is a grid, such as southern Johnson County. In the North Corridor area, though, Gardner said, it makes it more difficult.

Stutsman quoted Thompson from an earlier meeting, when she said the purpose of roads is to move people from one place to another. She wondered if the Board should be working towards this goal, having a network of main artery roads? She noted this would serve people who commute from south of Johnson County, to get to Iowa City. She said this trend is only going to intensify, as there gets to be more and more jobs in the area. Gardner said that instead of randomly identifying a road as an arterial road going across the County, he said the Board could influence traffic counts by which roads they chose to upgrade. Gardner said it made more sense to him to upgrade roads where the demand is, instead of picking a route and upgrading that road. Stutsman asked if they could change where the demand is, by improving a road? Gardner said yes, to a certain extent; traffic flows could be adjusted. Thompson said the importance of the grid idea was not that they build the roads right away, but that the County announced that those roads were the ones the Board considered the main roads in the County, and they were going to preserve those right-of-ways. Then, Thompson said, all the landowners know where the County plans to put the road, and can make their own plans accordingly. Gardner said he sees roads that need to be improved, just to keep up with the demand that is already there. Neuzil said the problem is that the County is behind; there are chip-seal roads that have vehicle counts of 2,000-2,500. Neuzil thought those are the roads that should be fixed first. Harney said he disagreed with this to a point, in that they should build roads according to a combination of factors: where the traffic is now, and where the County wants it to go.

Stutsman wondered about these problems as how they related to Sharon Center Road? She said she wanted the best way to handle resources, and said the County is talking about putting a lot of money into Sharon Center Road. She acknowledged there are some curves that need straightening, and some traffic and safety hazards. Lehman said the State lowered the priority of improving Highway 1. Stutsman didn’t think they were going to be able to ignore it for too much longer. Lehman wondered if the State DOT would delay the Highway 1 project if the County upgraded Sharon Center Road. Lehman said some roads required cooperation between municipalities, and that is why the County only did sections of some roads. Neuzil said he liked the idea of doing roads all at once.

Lehman clarified the County’s definition of a hard-surface road, saying that there is often confusion about this. He said a chip-seal road is not considered a hard-surface road by road engineers. He said chip-seal roads do not allow for a shoulder, or paint. A hard-surface road is concrete or asphalt. Gardner affirmed Lehman’s statements. Harney said he doesn’t like it when the County starts a road, and doesn’t complete it, as happened with Sand Road. Harney said he would like to finish Sand Road to where the City of Iowa City would agree to take care of part of the road. Harney said he also thought Prairie du Chien should be completed. On Sharon Center Road, Harney said, he believes the residents have a good argument in saying that the upgrading of the road now, prior to Highway 1 being finished, the road in see increased traffic. Harney thought the County could wait on Sharon Center Road until after Highway 1 is completed. Lehman said the purpose today was to decide which road should be addressed first, with the limited number of available dollars.

Stutsman thought they should also look at the plan for County trails, to make sure that tied in. She asked if there is a trails map? Gardner showed a copy of the County trails map. Gardner didn’t think the map was clear, in many places. Neuzil said the map is wishful thinking; the County doesn’t have the resources to put in all the trails identified on the map. Gardner said that Kansas Avenue shows a trail on it, which makes sense when it meets up to Highway 1, but noted that the chances of putting a bike trail on Kansas Avenue are probably pretty slim. Lehman said the trails map was a wish list, and didn’t relate to the County’s 5-Year Road Plan. Gardner agreed, and said it doesn’t tie in with the road plan very well. Neuzil said the Board has recognized, in its Strategic Plan, that trails should be part of the future 5-Year Road Plan. Neuzil noted, and Gardner confirmed, that the County cannot condemn land for a trail.

Neuzil said the Board has to make some decisions pretty soon, as Secondary Roads needs to know if Sharon Center Road is on or off. He said they have the choice of working on a different road on the list, or bump everything up a year. Thompson asked if the preliminary work could be finished in time to do construction on a different road? Gardner said that if Sharon Center Road is pulled, there will not be a large project ready to do 2 years from now. Harney asked if they could do the bridge on Sharon Center Road, and perhaps soften a couple of the curves? Miller said the department prioritizes structures separately, and the bridge on Sharon Center Road was only bumped up in order to correlate with the road construction. Structurally, Miller said, the bridge isn’t in any danger of falling down. He said it was lacking functionally, but there are other bridges that rank higher on the department’s priority list that could be bumped up. Miller said a bridge doesn’t require as much lead time; 12-18 months would be sufficient. On a bigger project, though, like Sand Road, more lead time is required. Miller clarified that they don’t have a survey done on Sand Road, which would indicate wetlands impacts, and there are also archaeological problems in the area as well. Miller said they also have not notified anyone in the area of any work to be done. All these factors meant that the project probably could not be started on only a few months’ notice. Thompson asked if that would mean that they would more or less lose the good part of one whole construction season? Miller said yes, although they could move some structures up. Stutsman thought that the timing might be OK, because of the tight budget. Lehman said they could carry the money over, because Secondary Roads wasn’t like other departments, where unused money reverted to the General Fund. He noted Secondary Roads keeps their money in their reserve. Neuzil said they still had 18 months, and Gardner said they had this time to buy the right-of-way and let the project.

Neuzil thought it would be a mistake to skip a year, considering how far behind the County is on road maintenance. He thought that the department should try and get the work done in time to start another project, if necessary, noting that Secondary Roads has an extra road engineer now, a position recently added and funded by the Board of Supervisors. Gardner agreed, but pointed out that there a lot of other people that are necessary, from the DOT, DNR, and the Corps of Engineers. Gardner said they won’t even be able to get a survey done until the spring, and it won’t be completed until summer, and then they need to acquire all the right-of-way.

Stutsman asked other Board members if they are hearing a lot of complaints about County roads. Neuzil said yes, especially dust. Stutsman thought the County road system is probably pretty good, overall, though there is always room for improvement. Harney said he has heard complaints about areas of the County where residents feel that curves and bridges are hazardous. Neuzil said he mostly hears complaints about the Road Performance Standards, which are restricting development in areas that the County has said they want to develop. Stutsman she hears complaints about the gravel and dust. Harney wondered if some of the bridges and culverts could be done this year, if these projects do not take as long to prepare for. Lehman asked if bridge construction and improvement funds come from the same place as road funds, or is there criteria to separate the 2 uses? Gardner said it’s all the same money. Stutsman wondered if they are trying to dodge the bullet, because there’s no controversy in building bridges, while there always is controversy when building roads? Neuzil asked if there is anything else on the 5-Year Road Plan that could be moved ahead, that the department would have time to do? Miller said he would like the Board to tell him what their priorities are, and he can tell them when those things could be completed. Miller said he didn’t particularly care which projects they would work on, but would like the Board to provide the Secondary Roads department with a list of projects, so they can get them done. Neuzil and Lehman agreed that this is a fair request. Stutsman hoped that by opening up the process of the 5-Year Road Plan, the public has a chance for input. She continued that the decision on roads is a policy decision by the Board. She wondered what the Board wants for the County, long-term, as related to the roads system? She advocated a planned, managed, and thoughtful approach to where the County dollars are spent in managing County roads.

Harney said one of the large elements of this issue is the question of where the Board wants growth to occur. Stutsman agreed. Harney said high vehicle counts on some low-quality County roads are preventing development in areas the Board would like to see developed. He advocated upgrading some of these roads, to allow development. Lehman said Planning and Zoning has given some good information about this issue, and this information needs to be considered. Stutsman agreed. Thompson asked if the Board would be in favor of adding a factor about development to the Secondary Roads’ criteria? Lehman wasn’t sure how they could get objective information, but agreed with the principle.

Fred Mally asked about adding a road to the 5-Year Road Plan: Ely Road W6E on 382, to the County line. He said in 1993, 382 and 965 were both flooded out, and the traffic was diverted to Ely Road. Mally said the road was dangerous because of all the bicyclists using the road, which doesn’t have shoulders. He said the road is important as a southeast-northwest link between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. Mally asked about the process of getting a secondary road black-topped, or oiled? Is a petition necessary? Neuzil said that 3 Supervisors have to be convinced to put it on the list. Mally said there has been growth in the area, and the road carries a lot of traffic. He said that the County puts gravel on the road in the summer, and plows the gravel off in the winter, which doesn’t make sense. He also complained about the dust, and said if the Board was going to allow houses being built on a gravel road, some plans should be made to upgrade the road to a blacktop road. He thought that some of the short gravel roads, including Ely Road, should be hard-surface roads. Harney said that Ely Road was a good example of an issue discussed earlier, when Harney brought up the idea of cooperating with other municipalities in upgrading roads. Harney said that Ely Road could be upgraded in conjunction with Linn County. Mally said that the right-of-way land was all government land in the area, so land acquisition would not be an expensive part of the project.

Neuzil asked if a project such as Ely Road could realistically be considered as a replacement for the Sugar Bottom Road project? Miller said whenever they resurface a road, they put shoulders on it at the same time. Miller said the Ely Road is on the department’s future projects list, but it has been resurfaced within the last 10 years. He admitted that there are a number of paved roads around the County that need to have shoulders added, and Ely Road is one of them. Miller also suggested paving the shoulders. Miller said that Mally was correct about the right-of-way, which would not cost the County anything for the majority of the project; however, Miller mentioned that there are a lot of wetland areas that would be impacted by the project. Miller said that F12 is another road without shoulders, and Neuzil added Herbert Hoover Highway, American Legion Road; Stutsman added IWV.

Stutsman explained to Mally that the County does have a process to determine which roads are placed on the 5-Year Road Plan, and asked Miller to explain this. Miller said Secondary Roads has created a priority system that includes traffic count, accident rates, the geometry of the road, and the type of service the road provides (a connector road, or arterial road, etc.). Miller said that this system is not set up to prioritize gravel roads, though, but only paved and seal-coated roads. Mally asked if the County would get money from the DNR, and Miller said no. Thompson asked if there are gravel roads that have high enough traffic counts and accident statistics to get them onto the 5-Year Road Plan? Gardner said there might be one, Deer Creek Road. Gardner said that there are very few rock roads in the County that carry a traffic count of 300, whereas the oil roads generally begin at 300. Mally suggested seal-coating Ely Road, but Stutsman said they are not converting gravel roads to seal-coated roads anymore. Miller said people drive oiled roads as if they are paved, and this is a problem.

Dick Gibson said that he was for years responsible for the long-range planning at the University. He thought the County has a serious process problem on its hands, and thought the Board recognizes this. He said the public complains vociferously about the details of a proposed upgrading to the road they live on. He said the lack of adequate available details about the road project early in the planning stages is part of the problem. He said a 5-Year Road Plan is a pretty short a horizon for a planning plan, and suggested increasing the level of planning on a project before it gets to the 5-Year Road Plan. This would be work that has to be done anyway, he pointed out, and would better inform the landowners along the road earlier in the process. Another point, Gibson said, is the notion of rebuilding a road, and what that means. He said there needs to be some give and take in terms of the design standards that are put together for a given road project. Gibson said once the Board figures out how to set their priorities as to which roads are to be worked on, the Secondary Roads staff can put a process in place that will better serve the County. He said the public has to be kept informed about what is going on, if the Board expects the public to make knowledgeable input.

Vernon Brogla asked if there is any consideration of improving Rohret Road this year. Lehman said no, and said it used to be a chip-seal road. Brogla confirmed this, and said he has lived on the road for 80 years, and said there is a small, single-lane bridge that needs to be replaced. He asked if there are any plans to replace this bridge. Miller said he wasn’t sure, but said he has heard another complaint about the bridge. Miller said there are a number of narrow bridges throughout the County, and the Secondary Roads Department has a list of future projects that they plan to replace in-house. These projects are each less than $50,000, and the department finishes about 4-6 of these projects per year.

Jim Murphy said that Sharon Center Road is basically used for the people that live on that road, and for agricultural uses. He said the road that’s being proposed is a road designed to carry 70 mile per hour traffic, which is a bad mix with farm machinery. Murphy said the bridge does need replacing. He said he had recently left a map with the Supervisors, and said he has some concerns about traffic coming off Highway 1 on 500th and 540th Streets. He said the current traffic count is 590-700 vehicles per day, well under the 1,000 limit, and stated they don’t serve any communities, because Wellman, Kalona, and Frytown are all served by Highway 1. He identified several intersections that will have increased traffic, and said this concerned him. He surmised that the traffic count will jump if the road is widened.

John Meyer agreed with Gibson’s earlier suggestion about better informing the public in the early stages of road planning. Meyer said he wants to keep the bridge where it is, not move it 30-40 feet east, as proposed in the bridge replacement project. He said he owns a lot of land along the road, which he did not want to get rid of. He said the County would take a lot of his ground if the bridge were moved. Meyer said the City of Iowa City had purposely put in a crooked road near the airport to slow the traffic down, and wondered why the County wanted to straighten a road?

Tom Foster also reinforced Gibson’s earlier point about the importance of long-term planning. He said he has been trying to point this out to the Board of Supervisors for a number of years. He noted that people didn’t understand what was going to happen on Sharon Center Road until the process was fairly far along. He said in a recent survey, 90% of respondents asked for better notification about upcoming work on their road. Foster said that if a road is being considered, or first placed on the 5-Year Road Plan, a small sign should be posted, stating the times of upcoming meetings. Foster asked about safety issues on Sharon Center Road, and wondered if that was still a criteria? He said it has one of the worst crash rates in the County. Lehman said this issue was thoroughly discussed at an earlier meeting. Foster asked about the Planning and Zoning road rankings, and asked if citizens could get the data that was used to compile the rankings? Foster also said that he didn’t think that Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road served the residentially-zoned areas referred to earlier in the meeting, and asked Moore if he thought Foster was wrong? Moore said that those 2 roads are arterial roads that service the area in question. Foster also asked that the Board looks at vacancy rates and anticipated build-out rates, both with and without improved infrastructure. Lehman wondered if the zoning decisions made in 1960 were still valid ones, or if the current Board should reexamine those issues, or shift emphases? Dvorak replied that down-zoning property is very difficult and costly to do. Lehman said he wasn’t necessarily talking about down-zoning, but wondered about shifting proposed growth areas to an area, perhaps, around Rapid Creek Road? Lehman said there was more data that would be helpful, such as in-fill rates, and Moore said Planning and Zoning has that data. Lehman thought that information should be added, as an additional criteria.

Kevin Kidwell said that improving Sugar Bottom Road would be to his benefit, monetarily. He said he thought it was a road that didn’t really go anywhere, though it is a nice, scenic road. He admitted that he didn’t want close neighbors. Kidwell thought that the price tag would be very high to improve Sugar Bottom Road. He asked about cost estimates, and Miller said it would be expensive. Kidwell said he heard it might be as high as $20 million, and said he didn’t think the County could afford that.

Linda Donaldson said she was here to talk about biking in the County. She hoped the Board would think not only about which roads should be improved, but also about how they should be improved. She said that Sharon Center Road is a favorite biking road, and Sugar Bottom Road is the most popular. She said Sugar Bottom Road is a beautiful road, and it would be a pity if the beauty were destroyed.

John Bruseck, who also lives on Sharon Center Road, again commended Gibson for his ideas about advance planning. Bruseck said the project on Sharon Center Road has been discussed since 1999, but he received his first notification about the project 6-8 weeks ago. He said some additional common courtesy would go a long way, and could make the process a lot smoother. Bruseck asked the Board to consider alternatives for doing what is essentially a Highway 1 bypass, on Sharon Center Road. He admitted that the bridge does need to be replaced. He said shutting the road down for half of the summer, during construction, would divert much of the traffic off of Sharon Center Road.

Pat Cancilla seconded Dick Gibson’s comments about the need for planning, and said he has presented information to the Board which he said illustrates the need for more planning. Cancilla said that it has been 5 years since the Board has done a North Corridor study, and asked when the Board is going to conduct a North Corridor study, and if there will be citizen participation? He said that the new Engineer at the Secondary Roads Department was hired, in part, to conduct road studies of the North Corridor. How is that study being done, and will it integrate with the issues raised at the meeting today? Cancilla also asked about the timeline as to when the Board was looking for that information to come forth, so it can be part of the planning process for the roads.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said Planning and Zoning has been talking about coming back to the Board for a work session in the next 4-6 weeks regarding a North Corridor study, and said they would present that information to the Board, who would determine what would be done with it. Regarding timelines, Miller said that Secondary Roads wants direction from the Board as to what area the department should be looking at, but a timetable has not been set yet. Miller repeated that he wanted direction from the Board before he committed a lot of departmental resources to preliminary work on roads that were not going to be improved. Miller said there has been a survey done on Newport Road and Sugar Bottom Road, because they are on the 5-Year Road Plan, and have looked at some alignment possibilities. He noted that one possible result of a feasibility study is to do nothing at all, and if that is the case, he does not want to spend a lot of time or money on a project that isn’t going to happen. Cancilla added that the process should include not only looking at the existing road, but also whether or not there are alternatives, and how they could interrelate with the North Corridor Plan, and the rest of the plans for the townships.

C. Joseph Holland said he also lives on Sharon Center Road. He said he would not have wanted to be Miller, trying to explain the proposed project to a hostile crowd. He said he did not think that the project happened in as stealthy a manner as what some are claiming. He said that the Johnson County Secondary Roads Department puts out a newsprint mailing to the residents of the County, and Holland said he has known of the upcoming project, from this publication, for a couple of years. He said he and another person from the area also met with Secondary Roads staff last summer, and received some preliminary drawings. Holland said that the County staff was very cooperative, and did make an effort to try and inform people. Holland said that until there is a reasonable idea of what the project will entail, a lot of people are not going to understand it. He said that despite some personal background in roads and land use, the drawings he saw last summer didn’t make a lot of sense to him. He said they are not easily understandable to a layperson. Holland said that the more advanced notice people are given and the more integrated and comprehensive the planning process, the better the end product. He also said, though, that citizens have to be proactive about things happening in their area, and there are ways to find that out. Holland said the 5 Year Road Plan is a very important issue, as financial challenges are going to increase in the coming years. He said that State funding for road projects will come under increasing pressure in the foreseeable future. Holland said that Sharon Center Road was Highway 1 until 1951. What is now called Highway 1 was built to take traffic pressure off the modern Sharon Center Road. He said if Sharon Center Road if improved again, then the County is defeating the purpose of what was done in 1950, to get traffic off of that road. Holland said he is concerned about the level of increased traffic on that road if it is improved to the proposed standards. He admitted that there are safety issues, but said signage should be the first step in addressing those safety issues, not road construction. Holland said he’s driven the road thousands and thousands of times, and the signage is wholly inadequate. He said some of the signage for curves is misplaced, and the curves should have chevrons, or poles with reflectors. Holland said he added an arrow on the side of his mailbox, because his mailbox has been hit a couple of times. In an era of tight budgets, he said the first thing to try is with the least-costly alternative.

Holland said he is also concerned about development issues in the area, and said the area has been targeted by both County and City in the Fringe Area Agreements, thought it is an agricultural area in the County’s Land Use Plan. He said a significant amount of the area was zoned Highway Commercial in 1960, and he thought people will request commercial subdivisions if Sharon Center Road is upgraded. He reminded the Board that they have very limited discretion in disapproving subdivision requests, where the zoning already exists. Currently, Holland said, the road is inadequate for commercial use, but upgrading the road could result in dramatic changes in land use in the area, including commercial uses. Holland summarized that the Board should approach this issue cautiously, reminding the Board that the 1960 zoning decisions still affect the County today, just as decisions regarding the 5-Year Road Plan affect the next 40 years, and beyond. Holland complimented County government for being responsive to citizenry, and thanked the Board for their the patience and open-mindedness.

Lehman asked the Secondary Roads staff how a citizen could get a bridge or a road studied or considered for possible inclusion on the 5-Year Road Plan? Miller said he has a list of the narrow bridges on gravel or seal-coat roads, identified by the snowplow drivers as structures that should be evaluated for possible upgrade. Miller said a citizen could call the Secondary Roads department and talk to a staff person about a bridge. Thompson asked if the Rohret Road bridge will be placed on the list, and Miller replied that it is already on, but there are so many on the list that not all can be upgraded in a year. Harney asked if the work on that bridge will be done in-house, and Miller said he believed so. He said they don’t have a design, yet. Thompson responded to Holland’s comments, saying that it is true that the County Land Use Plan designates land around the villages for development. Holland said he knows that.

Tom Carsner asked the Board what comes next in the process? He said he realizes that the Board has an April 15th deadline for the 5-Year Road Plan, and wondered when the Board will next meet to talk about whether Sharon Center Road is on or off the FY 03 plan? When will the other reports and comments heard today be integrated, and how can the public be kept informed? Stutsman thought that the Board needs to make a decision pretty quickly about Sharon Center Road, and Miller confirmed this. Lehman said they have discussed whether Sharon Center Road is on or off, and have also talked about taking a sabbatical, where no major projects are done for a year. Miller said that if the Board wants to take Sharon Center Road off the program, then all the projects on the 5-Year Road Plan need to be evaluated, and the Board should place them where they wished within the 5-Year Plan. He said this has to be done by April. Neuzil asked Miller to share, at the next meeting, possible projects that could be bumped up if Sharon Center Road is taken off the plan.

Stutsman noted that while the Board cannot vote today, because it’s a work session, they could do a straw poll. She said Secondary Roads does need some direction. Thompson said it makes a difference to her whether they are taking the project off permanently, or just for awhile? Thompson wondered if the bridge project would be moved back also, if the road is taken off the plan? Stutsman thought the bridge project will be done. Neuzil disagreed, and noted that Secondary Roads staff had said that the bridge is not a high priority; it was moved up and scheduled for upgrade because of the road project. Miller agreed; he admitted that it’s narrow and has clearance problems, but structurally, it is not, by far, the worst bridge in the County. Stutsman thought that all the preliminary work was done on the bridge? Miller said the plans have been sent to the State, but with the alignment to the east, the alignment allied with the new road. The plan will have to be resubmitted, Miller said, on the same alignment, and a permit from the Corps of Engineers would be necessary. Miller said he wouldn’t seek this permit until he knew for sure that they were going to do the bridge project. Lehman asked about the current weight restrictions on the bridge. Miller didn’t think there are any, but the bridge wouldn’t fit 2 trucks side-by-side. Lehman asked Meyer if the bridge is wide enough to handle agricultural equipment, such as a combine; Meyer said it is.

Miller said another issue that soon needs resolution is some type of plan from the Board, prioritizing the projects in the long-term. Lehman acknowledged that they have a short-term issue, with Sharon Center Road, and the implementation of a long-term planning process, as Mr. Gibson suggested. Stutsman suggested that she and Harney, the road liaisons, meet with Secondary Roads and come up with a process and some preliminary work, and bring that to the Board.

Thompson asked for a straw poll about Sharon Center Road. Neuzil said he’s leaning against the idea of Sharon Center Road, as long as there would still be a road project that gets done. Stutsman said she’s leaning against Sharon Center, not just indefinitely, but permanently, but doing the bridge. Harney said he would like to see the bridge replaced, but Sharon Center Road taken off of the 5-Year Road Plan. Lehman said he would like to see the road stay on the 5-Year Road Plan for future upgrade. Regarding the bridge, Lehman said he would like to see what other priorities might be more important. Lehman said he thought from the comments he’s heard that the bridge will hold the weight, and noted that the bridge does slow the traffic down. Gardner said he is trying to get this straight in his mind; the bridge is the only thing slowing traffic down on this section of the road, yet people who don’t want the road improved (claiming traffic speeds would increase to a dangerous level) do want the bridge replaced. Harney said he has a whole stack of letters from residents who live on the road; they want the bridge replaced, but nothing more done. Gardner said if they want to base their decision 100% on these people’s opinion, this is what they should do. He pointed out that they are not the only people who use the road. Lehman said he would be in favor of still considering the bridge. Thompson said she could see she is in the minority, but said that the County had criteria as to how the County would choose roads for improvement, and Sharon Center Road meets those criteria. She said it has been on the 5-Year Road Plan for a number of years, the County has already made an investment in the preliminary work for the road project, and will face the possibility of losing a construction year if the road is removed from the plan. She said some of the concerns expressed by neighboring landowners would be met in future phases of the design. For example, Thompson said that some 100-year-old trees that had been cited as a concern could be saved. Thompson said she felt strongly that roads money should be allocated between development roads and transportation roads, and she sees Sharon Center Road as a transportation road. She said she would like to keep the road and bridge projects together, so postponing it doesn’t make a lot of sense to her. Thompson summarized that there are 4 votes to postpone the road. Miller asked about postponing the bridge? Lehman said he wants to see alternatives before voting on the bridge; he wondered if there are other structures that could be worked on? Stutsman said she is considering the bridge, in the same alignment it is in now. Neuzil didn’t think it makes sense to fix the bridge if the road project is shelved. Lehman and Thompson summarized that the bridge should be kept in the 5-Year Road Plan, at a high priority level, for the time being.

Thompson asked for Secondary Roads’ staff’s opinion on Neuzil’s 2 options, as he had stated earlier: find a project to move up and fill the slot of Sharon Center Road, or move everything in the 5-Year Road Plan up one year. Gardner said that things can be moved up according to the old priority system, but if what is moved up is not to the Board’s liking, then they will all be back where they are now. Gardner said what he wanted was for the Board to devise some type of priority system, so Secondary Roads knows what the Board’s priorities are. Harney didn’t think the Supervisors are really clear on this either, and repeated Lehman’s earlier question about adding additional development areas. Stutsman said with the budget constraints, she wouldn’t mind a year without a major road project. Thompson suggested that Secondary Roads do what Mr. Gibson suggested earlier in the meeting: to notify people when their road is placed on the 5th year of 5-Year Road Plan. She thought that could be the occasion of the first public hearing, so people would have a chance to express their concerns then. Neuzil agreed, and didn’t think holding a couple of extra meetings a year would be that much extra work. Lehman thought the idea of a sign would be a good idea. Stutsman said they need to define some kind of a process, because they don’t have one now.

Laurie Tulchin said that before the signs go up, before there is a list, before the homeowners are notified, there needs to be a process. She said there needs to be a Transportation Study and get the roads narrowed down, so the approach is not a random one. Tulchin suggested that the Secondary Roads Department assign an engineer to this project, since some time has been freed up from the elimination of the Sharon Center Road project, and the possible absence of a large project.

Tom Carsner asked again about when the next meeting is? Miller said that criteria need to be submitted to the State of Iowa by April 15th. The Board scheduled another work session on Tuesday, January 29th, 2002 at 1:30.

Stutsman asked the Board if she and Harney could sit down with Secondary Roads staff and try to nail down some of these issues? The Board said this is fine. Neuzil thought they could try to add a 5th category. Thompson asked if the 5th category would result in a reconsideration of all the roads on the plan now? Stutsman said they would bring back some thoughts on this issue.

Greg Pickett asked how much money in local funds there will be, without causing a tax increase? Neuzil replied that they have heard 1st-round budget discussions, but haven’t yet received specific numbers such as these.

Adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary