MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 17, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Thompson called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:17 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
Thompson: Business from John Yapp, Assistant Planner for Johnson County Council of Governments, presenting the cellular phone tower study.
Johnson County Council of Governments Executive Director Jeff Davidson: Thanks very much for meeting with us. In our discussions with Mike Lehman about this issue, he indicated that he felt the full Board might have some questions about what is being proposed here. I’ll let John and I kind of outline that for you. In October of this past year, the City of Iowa City brought a proposal to JCCOG to do a study involving the whole community. That’s why they felt JCCOG was an appropriate venue to discuss it at. A study of cellular phone tower locations, the at least perceived issue being that there is getting to be a proliferation of these towers. That they are unsightly and that in some instances it is felt that with respect to the land use policies of whichever community or entity is being considered, it may or may not be consistent with their land use plans. What JCCOG would do, and please understand that we don’t profess to be experts in this, but we think we can probably organize things to where we can find the experts and work with them. What we would do is, in behalf of the entire community involving all of the representatives of JCCOG, we would do a study of where the appropriate locations for these towers are. By appropriate, that would involve both appropriate from the cellular phone tower end of geographically where they are appropriate to be located, as well as then with respect to the land use planning of the individual communities where they are appropriate as well. Then, establish a fixed number of locations that would be where everyone would agree these towers should be located. Then, when there were requests in the future for, and my understanding is the requests are getting to be even more and more, that the communities and the University would basically direct people to the private individuals who owned these locations that had been identified and those would be the locations where they would be allowed. At the October meeting, there seemed to be general feeling by the membership of JCCOG that it would be a good idea to do the study. Doing the study commits nobody to anything. The commitment is ultimately when you sign something that says we agree to this and that would be ultimately each individual entity would decide to that or not, based on what the study said. The membership at the JCCOG meeting in October did desire to go back and talk to their individual councils and boards and that to see if there was interest. Just in case you are interested, the City of North Liberty has agreed to participate in the study, although they indicated that they are not interested in supporting any consultant assistance as part of the study. But, if JCCOG conducts a study, they said count us in. The City of Coralville has indicated they will participate in the study as well, although they did indicate as a group that they felt it was important for the Board of Supervisors to participate in the study as well. Their participating might be contingent on whether or not you all decided to participate. The University of Iowa has said they will participate in the study. The City of Tiffin has said they will not participate in the study. So, that is kind of how it sits right now. Iowa City of course has indicated that they will participate in the study as well. So, we have a JCCOG meeting next week on the 23rd. Carol and Mike are the representatives from the Board. At that meeting, we intend to see how everybody wants to proceed, who wants to be involved and if they are still interested in proceeding with the study conducted by JCCOG. At this point, if you have questions for John or I, John would be the person leading the study on our end and probably is our staff person with the most knowledge right now with cellular phone tower issues in conjunction with some other projects he has worked on. Any questions for us?
Lehman: Just for the record, Pat will be the representative.
Davidson: That’s right, I’m sorry. I did get the letter from Carol, it will be Pat and Carol now, that’s right.
Lehman: I just wanted to ask, John, do you have input now when different communities look at these requests, do they come to you for any type of informational background?
JCCOG Transportation Planner John Yapp: Iowa City has on a frequent basis. Usually, the cellular tower companies, all they look at is the geography and the topography. They want to be on high ground. They want to be in a centrally located location where they have a lot of cellular phone users, which usually means in a neighborhood or near a sub-division. Where we get the conflict is, those are the places where non-cellular phone users do not want to see a tower. It’s usually the aesthetic issue interrupting the view of the horizon and those types of things. So, there is some attempt to find some common ground and to try to pre-identify some appropriate locations to reduce the chance of conflicts coming up later on.
Thompson: What do you need from us? Do we need to put this on for next week and vote or just give you direction?
Davidson: No, we basically Carol, need to know from yourself and Pat, or if you send an alternate, from whoever is there representing the County, if you want to participate in the study, based on who says they will or won’t participate, then it will be the decision of the Board as a whole as to whether or not they even want to do the study.
Thompson: Is there any cost to this?
Davidson: As of right now, we don’t believe there will be any cost. We are hopeful that when we work with the cellular phone tower companies to get the information that we need about their end of it, that they will be willing to provide that voluntarily to us, because it is in their best interest to have a study like this done. If there becomes any financial assistance that we need because we are going to have to work with a consultant, we’d have to bring that back to the Board and discuss that with you at that time. Right now there has been no expense identified.
Stutsman: Rick, what does the County do with cell towers? What is our current process or procedure?
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: Do you want a history or do you want me to do this real brief? I’ve got some maps. I’ve got some information.
Lehman: Kind of like to hear a little bit of your history. But, how does a cell tower application come to the County now?
Dvorak: Well, the history thing, we… About 5 years ago we started noticing the migration from analog to digital. When an analog was out there, we didn’t have a whole lot of towers. We were running, because I think their area was probably 10 or 15 miles, something like that. When they went to digital, then the whole thing changed. The huge towers you saw in the past, those are the analog towers. Digital doesn’t need a very big tower. I think our average is probably 150-200 feet, depending on the topography. What we did then is spent approximately 5 years working on by-laws. Our permits issued are to the Board of Adjustment. They work with the cell companies. They came up with a set of rules that they have to follow before an application is filed. One of the important things is, they require cohabitation in our by-laws. When you submit an application, you have to give an area of where your service will be provided. Then, within the 2 mile radius of that area, we require that they contact any existing cell sites to see if they can cohabitate on those sites. If they can’t, then they are required to submit to us an Engineering Study of the area that they have to provide service to. They have to show us the blank spots. The areas that they want to hit with this tower. There are a lot of blank spots out there. So, we, our Board then needs to see that. Their engineers designed that. They located it for us. If they agree, our Board agrees, after a public hearing they will issue the permit. We also require fencing. We require buffering. We require tree plantings, depending on the location in the County. Also during the public hearing, we notify the neighbors. We do keep all of the current cell sites on file. This is on our web site. Our application forms are on our web site. We think we have a very good handle on this. The thing that we fall back on is, John will tell you, is that you have a very difficult time stopping a cell company to build a cell site. I think there was a Supreme Court case or something that pretty much gave them the latitude. If they have to provide a service in our area, they have to provide a service. So, what we do is we help locate them in that area. We don’t tell them they can’t build. We just say, hey, let’s work it out with the neighbors. If there is any problems, topographical problems or whatever, we try to work with the cell site companies to try to facilitate their needs in an area. We want to provide service in your area. The County really, in the past, has said this is a service to the community, we want to help you with that service. We have had a few concerns that have come up in the hearing, but generally the public has accepted these things. Because of what John is talking about, we are very careful in trying to make sure these companies cohabitate. The new towers that are built are required to facilitate 3 users. So, we think we have a very good handle on it. We have a very good indication of where the cell sites are at. We have all addresses for 911 purposes. When they cohabitate, another company comes in and puts their whips on their tower, they notify us. So, we have a very good handle of what is going on in the County now. We can definitely share that for a study and it wouldn’t take much staff time.
Thompson: That’s what I was thinking. If we have all of that already, then you can share it and maybe that can be sort of a model.
Davidson: Yes. Clearly going in and saying what each… John has a pretty good handle of what Iowa City is doing. That would be one of the first things we would do is see what each individual entity is doing with respect to regulation, the kinds of things that Rick was talking about. I think it is important for the Board to understand when you are considering this matter, that I think the basic goal of this study is to stem the number of these things. That is the basic goal. So, if you agree or disagree philosophically with the attempting to limit the number of these things, I think that should be an important consideration for you and whether or not you want to participate in the study.
Lehman: I see that some are like, planning for zoning and stuff, where you identify locations that are needed. It’s going to let the public let know ahead of time. Is it going to save the County’s portion, the Board of Adjustment time out there trying to decide? I realize it’s the cell company that has to do the legwork. This is going to be a savings in time, possibly dollars and resources of companies or an individual that would like to contact a cell phone company and say I would like to locate one on mine. They could go to a map and say, this isn’t a place that has been identified, you’re already covered, there are no openings. That type of thing. That’s what I am looking for is the idea of trying to save resources as applications come in.
Dvorak: Our Board of Adjustment really doesn’t spend a lot of time on staff business. We put all of the burden on the cell company to provide that information for us. One thing I really encourage the Board not to do, is after a study comes in is regulation. Our Board of Adjustment has worked extremely hard on this. I’m not sure if staff would want to get involved in going out and determining each location that would be the best in the County. I just don’t think we have the staff to do that. We’re very comfortable and our Board of Adjustment is very comfortable. We’ve not had any concerns shared with us from the community of a problem. So, not knowing the direction that John and Jeff would like to go, I don’t think we can provide a lot of staff time to assist them. We can give them maps and we can give them what we have, but to sit down and determine 24 square miles of areas to try to determine the best locations, we think we are doing a very good job now.
Harney: The only thing I would say is, I have had some contact with individuals that are concerned about the number of cell towers that are going up in particular areas, particularly close to residential settings and things like that. I would also, at the same time like to avoid the inference that we are favoring any particular property owner as far as who is going to be able to have these towers on their property and reap some benefits of those.
Davidson: I think Pat, the idea is to ultimately identify locations, maybe not as Rick as alluded to, maybe just an area rather than a pinpoint location. But, an area where it is suitable for these things or not. The very thing you are talking about is a critical component. We get the same complaints about locations in the County that are adjacent to built up residential areas, whether they be in the County or out of the County. But, that is an issue we have to deal with.
Thompson: Other than providing the documents that he brought with him this morning, are you expecting any further involvement from our staff?
Davidson: We would hope Carol, to be able to work with Rick and R.J., just to have some discussions with them about what the County is doing and get whatever materials we could. But, no, it is intended that JCCOG would provide the bulk of the staff work for the study.
Thompson: This is only a study.
Davidson: It’s only a study. It could eventually lead to some sort of a 28E Agreement between the entities such as we’ve done for land use. But, that will be kind of step 2, in determining if we want to do that. Then, of course you would have the option of participating in that or not.
Thompson: So, what guidance would the Board give for me and Pat for the meeting next week? Do we want to participate in this study?
Stutsman: My only concern is that ultimately the study will say we’ll dump all of the cell towers in the unincorporated area of Johnson County. I am interested in an equal balance. I understand the concerns in residential areas, but I think there are some concerns in the rural areas, too. I just would caution the study. Wouldn’t come up with saying, oh, guess what, all cell towers in Johnson County are to be located along the Interstate or whatever.
Thompson: That would indicate that we should participate so we could…
Neuzil: That’s what I was just going to say. I think that points you in the direction.
Harney: Is there a cost to us on this?
Davidson: As I said, right now Pat, it is just part of what JCCOG does for you in your annual participation with JCCOG.
Neuzil: Are you also looking at basically the future of where this whole deal is going? I see these towers, quite frankly as something that is going to be extremely outdated in the next 10-15 years the way that technology is going. Is there any thought about what is next on the scene, just to have that in mind? I don’t know what is next.
Stutsman: A clause saying they’ve got to dismantle them.
Davidson: To the degree that we can get a handle on that, sure Terrence. But, as you’ve said, the technology it seems like the advances move so quickly that keeping track of it is difficult. But, to the degree that that can be anticipated, sure, we would want to do that.
Neuzil: Like Sally just brought out, the idea that makes sure that this is a dated beta technology in the next 10 years. It would be nice to have some safeguards in case, in case that happens.
Dvorak: In the lease agreement they are required to move the sites. If they go kaput, they may not have the money to dismantle the site. But, that gives us an opportunity for the next company that comes in, you shall go to that site. Sally brought up a good point, too. We work very hard with the municipalities when an application comes in. Two applications we’ve had around North Liberty, we required them to go to the City of North Liberty. In one case one of the applicants basically said, well, they want too much money. We said that is not our problem. So they ended up going on their water tower. We do try to facilitate their needs, but we also do somewhat regulate them with a limited amount of regulations that we can provide to them.
Davidson: See, something like collocation on a water tower may be something that the study determines is appropriate and that where we have water towers, the idea of putting one on top of a water tower is a suitable location. That is the kind of thing we would hope to develop in the study. Putting one down smack in the middle of a residential area may not be determined to be a suitable location.
Harney: There certainly can’t be any harm in doing the study. We’re not committed to anything. It would be worth looking at as far as I am concerned.
Stutsman: Especially when I hear Coralville is waiting for the Board of Supervisors.
Davidson: They did say that specifically. I was asked to bring that to you.
Thompson: I think we have consensus for Pat and I.
Stutsman: Yes.
Thompson: OK, thank you.
Davidson: Great. Thank you.
Thompson: Business from the County Attorney.
Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: Nothing, thanks.
Margaret Reihman: I have something about the County Attorney.
Thompson: I’m sorry, the public comment comes at the end of our meeting.
Reihman: This is an inquiry to the County Attorney. That’s not at this time.
Thompson: To make an inquiry to the County Attorney, you would just contact the County Attorneys Office.
Reihman: I have already asked and made inquiry to the County Attorney and haven’t heard a response. That’s not an inquiry.
Lehman: Public comment is at the end of the meeting.
BUDGET COORDINATOR JEFF HORNE: MONTHLY REPORT FOR DECEMBER, 2001
Thompson: Business from Jeff Horne, the Budget Coordinator. This is the monthly report for December.
Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne: Good morning.
Stutsman: Morning.
Horne: December marks the half-way point of our Fiscal Year. Expenses and revenues should be at 50% of course. The departments are doing a pretty good job of staying within their expenses. We’re collecting some more revenues than we thought originally. As a trend we are seeing some reductions in the State funding on the revenue side as we anticipated. Some in MH/DD and some in Secondary Roads, mainly. We should anticipate seeing more of these reductions and expect them to carry over at least into next year. I’m going to give a little summary of some departments that have items of note this month. Public Health is running 6% over in its expenses, but it has collected 7% more in its revenues. So, basically they have gotten some more grants and have done some more expenditures and that will be taken care of when they have a budget amendment. They still have that one-time charge in the WIC Program. The Medical Examiner’s budget, as I stated in the previous reports, the autopsy line item has basically been expended for the year. We didn’t get any more billings in December, which is good. So, the line item is still within budget. Any large amount of them that come in would be over budget in that line item.
Stutsman: Jeff, we’re not going to have any more autopsies before the end of the year. Will they be able to make that up in the rest of their budget?
Horne: I don’t know. Their bills don’t come to us regularly on a monthly basis. We get large batches of them. I am going to try to work with them to see if we can. A lot of it is done in arrears. We’re paying for 3 months back.
Neuzil: We anticipate the budget process to be when, in March?
Horne: I’ll probably start getting it together actually the beginning of next month.
Neuzil: OK.
Thompson: When will the Field Examiners begin?
Horne: That’s what is giving us some leeway is the Field Examiner funds. Do you know Mike when those positions are going to start?
Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan: Well, the training takes place this weekend so it should start soon after that.
Thompson: OK.
Sullivan: I don’t have an exact date.
Stutsman: So, we have budgeted for those positions.
Horne: Yes.
Stutsman: But, they haven’t been filled.
Horne: No.
Stutsman: OK, all right.
Horne: That’s basically provided us some savings up to this point in that area. Hopefully, when that starts, we’ll see reductions in the Medical Examiner fees paid directly to Dr. White or the other University doctors.
Neuzil: So, it comes back to the question of, if we have a budget amendment and it’s at the end of February, we’re not going to really know or see a whole lot of changes until…unless we do it in March. It’s going to be hard to tell in February if we are going to have a problem with this department or not.
Horne: We’ll just go… As Jeff talked about or they talked about when they had their budget presentation, they are doing more autopsies and they gave their rationale at that point.
Thompson: They are also getting more revenue by charging (inaudible) ones back to them.
Horne: That’s true, too. That’s a very good point. There is more out of County settlement coming in as a result of that. SEATS is within budget, but we still are running pretty high on the maintenance line item. The Director is doing a good job at keeping the overall costs in line and that is putting a strain on her budget currently. The Physical Plant is still consistently 4% over budget. It’s been 4% over budget for a few months. It’s not going up any more. That’s what we talked about is the additional expenditures in building maintenance and electricity for the 3 main County buildings, which are the Administration Building, Courthouse and Jail. Court Services I’m noting is only 2% over budget. Why that is notable is because the Memmer Trial has taken place and we expected a deluge of expenses and that just hasn’t materialized yet in this budget.
Stutsman: Is it still coming?
Horne: I don’t know the answer to that. But we haven’t seen any…
Stutsman: Pardon me?
Lyness: It could be.
Horne: We haven’t seen a big, I guess my point is we haven’t seen a big problem with that budget as a result of the trial, so I think that is pretty good news really. MH/DD is short on its revenues here to date. Elaine Sweet has remained right within that on her expenditures, too, so that’s pretty consistent. She has only collected 42% of revenues but she has only expended 43% of the budget.
Stutsman: Is that 42% short because of what the State has done?
Horne: I think somewhat. I talked to her about it and she said maybe some of that but also because her payments are irregular. She is well under budget so it’s not a problem in the expenses side either. Secondary Roads, we have been talking about this quite a bit. Mike Gardner reported to me that he thought he would lose $140,000 this year in road funds. They are well under budget currently, but it’s possible that the 4th quarter appropriation may have to be altered to insure adequate fund balance for the first 2 months of Fiscal Year 2003. That may not be necessary if he is under budget like he is now.
Stutsman: He did make some adjustments in his current year’s budget as well as next year’s budget.
Horne: Right. It would just be a matter of when you appropriate the beginning of year 3 quarters the year’s appropriations. They’ll need one quarter to be released later. Generally we release that in February. So, that could be chained back if we need to ensure that he has enough in his fund to cover his expenses. Veterans Affairs I am going to note because Veterans Affairs is within budget. I’ve spoken with Leo several times and I think he has made an effort to keep his budget within line because he is aware of our budget situation with the General Fund this year and the tightness of it. So, I appreciate him working on that to get his budget in line. He will be coming in for a work session with the Board next week. He is back at work now and he will explain his budget then and talk about his new guidelines, or possible guideline changes. That is my summary of departments. A couple of notes, the initial budget presentations are complete. This afternoon we are going to start working on the budget as a whole. We’ll get our first… The Board will get to look at where we are at so far with what has been requested and submitted. We’ll begin work on that and we will go into February working on that. The budget will be certified in mid-March. Once again, the employment rate in Johnson County is low at 2.3%, so the economic state of the County is still very good and that is positive news. Any questions?
Stutsman: Good report, Jeff. I appreciate you keeping on top of these things and working with the department heads before things become a crisis.
Horne: Sure.
Stutsman: Do some preventive or proactive…
Horne: I think we try to see some things before they could become problems and make sure that we are…
Stutsman: I appreciate the work of the department heads, too. Mike Gardner was in yesterday and he has done what he can to make adjustments in his budget.
Horne: Mike did a really good job in working within the sort of constraints that he has got and doing a very good job in a relatively short period of time, too. So, I do appreciate that, too. Anything else?
Thompson: Thanks.
Horne: Thank you.
CAROL THOMPSON: SENIOR CENTER UPDATE
Thompson: Next it’s my turn. Each month the Senior Center Commission sends a representative to inform the Board about the goings on at our meeting. Our meeting was on Tuesday and I am the representative this month. Usually I go sit in that chair to make this report. There was some discussion about the change in record keeping that will be required if the Senior Center keeps track of people who participate there based on where they live in the County. Currently they only record whether they live in Iowa City or not in Iowa City. We’ve asked them to see if they could be a little more clear about where the non-Iowa City participants live. As we talked about it, we realized that they have a database with all of the addresses in it. They were thinking they would have to contact each person on the database and it would be very time consuming. I have asked Jean Schultz if she could look at it and see if there is not a way in the computer we could compare their database to our addressing system and tell them where the people live in a few seconds rather than days of work. So, we are working on that. Linda Kopping reported on the budget this year. You remember that when we met with Steve Atkins a week or so ago, he mentioned that there probably wouldn’t be much increase. The reason for that is that he, in his review of the budget, deleted most of the increases that the Commission asked for, namely the staff to have the Center open more hours. Probably there will not be a way to have more staff time in the Center next year. Although, that is a continuing interest of the Commission. There was also some discussion of the landscaping which he also was taking out. The remodeling over there has taken away all of the landscaping, so it looks pretty bare in front of the building. Linda is working on other ways to find money to do that. The Commission’s budget hearing at the City Council will be January 29th at 6:30 p.m. Also, because of no maintenance staff, or no available staff to do maintenance, the Senior Center will be curtailing weekend use of the building. They are going to freeze it at current levels so that new applicants won’t be accepted, but current activities that are going on there will be able to continue. Other than the program calendar, which is given to us each month to be on our web site, the only other thing I wanted to mention is that the Senior Center staff was very glowing in their comments about Mike Foster demeanor during the last few weeks of the Senior Dining Program. They said that he behaved in a really professional and positive manor and that they really felt that he helped make the transition good for the staff and the clients who use that program. So, I thought that was a nice thing. That is the report.