Stutsman: Discussion on Clear Zone Policy and tree.
Jordahl: Mike has been very patient with me on this and has spent a lot of time discussing and explaining, re-measuring, and adjusting, and re-engineering, and has been very responsive to the requests of citizens along the 140th Street Project. I had a conversation with a gentleman of the regional DOT office. I came away from that conversation with an understanding that the DOT has a policy on a required clear zone around roads, which was smaller, significantly smaller and narrower than the right-of-way, and that the DOT regularly worked to preserve trees in that area between the clear zone and the right-of-way. With the controversy that we had a few weeks ago on the right-of-way acquisition process on 140th Street, and the notion that people wanted to preserve some historic trees around their property that provided shade and so forth, maybe our policy could be looked at in terms of this clear zone versus right-of-way question. If we did have room between the required clear zone and the right-of-way, maybe we could preserve those trees. As I said, Mike was very energetic, went out there and did redesign the road. In brief, to describe this, it's a question of how deep the ditch is in front of the house. There's a required distance that you have to have clear from the end of the front slope, which they call the tow of the ditch, and then backwards toward the house. By raising the level of the ditch you can shorten that slope and, therefore, bring in the required clear zone. Mike was able to do that and, thereby, able to save a couple of big old trees in front of the house and go ahead with the right-of-way acquisition process so the project could go forward. Then, in a more global sense, there's a question of other people where we already had the right-of-way and the right-of-way had been sold previously in conjunction with the platting process. So the question is, if the adjustment was made for this landowner here, where the right-of-way had not been acquired and some redesign was done in order to achieve the purchase of right-of-way, then what about the people where right-of-way had been given up during the platting process? Ostensibly those people would know that that right-of-way meant that the County could cut down trees in the right-of-way. So when they gave that up during platting they could have gone out and measured it and said, well, OK our trees are within that right-of-way, someday if the County rebuilds the road the trees may be cut down. But the question is would we make adjustments? Would we re-engineer? Would we do the same kind of thing that was done for the Fullers in raising the ditch and saving their trees? Would that same thing be done where we already owned the right-of-way? It seemed to me that some sort of policy that would be consistent in handling all cases of trees near the road would be handled the same way. So Mike and I and Anne Lahey sat down and had an extensive discussion about this, and the solution seems to be better to... Rather than going at it at this point, where it would be very expensive, I suppose, to the County to do re-engineering in front of these homes that might include more than raising the ditches but might, in fact, require realigning the road some number of feet to the side, making a curve to go around trees. It would be preferable in the long-term to establish a policy where input could be had from the property owners at the very beginning of the design phase. So that a letter would go out to all property owners, as it does anyway during the survey phase, go out to all property owners along the proposed road. They would either be notified that the County was going to exercise its rights regarding their right-of-way at this time, or that the County was going to need to acquire right-of-way in their area, and that if they wish to have input into the design process about preserving some particularly significant historic tree, or something, that this would be the time to come forward. Then, let the Engineer digest that all early at the very beginning of the design process. Rather than confronting the present situation where the project has already been let. Construction has begun. Things are moving forward, where redesign would have to be not only done by the Engineer in very short order, but also right-of-way would have to be re-acquired. The project might be delayed, it might cause significant expenses in construction delay and so forth. So we're in a kind of rough situation regarding the current questions of a couple of people, Klines and Erenbergers, that have come forward about their trees. Going up there and looking at it, those trees are significantly within the clear zone, given the present design of the road. I don't think any amount of raising ditches could preserve those trees. What would be required at this point is a significant redesign of the road and probably making a curve in the road. Which leads to the question of how do we want the Engineer to approach this in the long-term? Are we going to make the road S around the fronts of homes where there are trees, or do we want straight roads? I think there are arguments on both sides. I mean, if you have a really significant stand of trees and beautiful things, we might want to curve around it. That's something that could be up for discussion. But what I found enlightening was, to get back to the beginning of my comments, that there is not in Johnson County road design a significant area between the clear zone and the right-of-way. What Mike does is establish what he calls a need line, and maybe I should let you discuss this, rather than letting me try to digest engineering comments.
Gardner: You're doing great so far.
Jordahl: OK. Well, correct me when I go astray. Mike establishes what he calls a need line for the design of the road. I worked as a painter for awhile, and you have to estimate materials pretty accurately in order to come out right on a job. I wasn't aware of the extent to which engineers did this with dirt on the roadsides, but they very much do. His design process includes looking at getting dirt from the back slope of the ditch, in order to raise the road, in order to establish the road bed that's necessary for the road that's being designed. So what Mike does is a very, very parsimonious approach of taking only the amount of dirt that's absolutely needed to establish the road bed. Then, although that need line may jog back and forth, in and out, depending upon where there's a hill, where there's a valley, he then makes straight lines so the farmers don't have to build crooked fences out of that. Then he readjusts the need line to be a smooth line, and again, to correspond to the amount of fill needed to construct the road. So in terms of the State policy, which he proudly provided me with a copy of, the State DOT says all desirable trees between the right-of-way line and the need line shall be preserved. Provided they are not within the clear zone or cause restricted sight distance. The problem at the County level is that we don't have any distance between the need line and the right-of-way line. Mike cuts that really closely so that only a minimum of right-of-way has to be required, in order to save the County money and yet to be able to construct his roads. So what we take for a right-of-way is only what is necessary for the building of the road. Rather than taking a broader right-of-way, as the Iowa Department of Transportation does. They acquire more right-of-way than they absolutely need to build the road and that's why they're able to preserve trees outside of the need line and within the right-of-way. So I had sort of a misunderstanding or was trying to compare apples and oranges about what the Iowa DOT policy was versus what our County road policy was. It's been quite an education for me. Another thing that Mike is able to do, is that he does, as part of this design process, regularly narrow the right-of-way when you come to a home so that more yard is preserved. He takes the fill dirt as part of the design process from areas outside of the front yard area of home. So he's already doing a great job in taking the minimum amount and creating the minimum impact, while still being fair to neighbors on both sides of the road. So, again, I've been very impressed with his responsiveness in this thing. I think we can move forward in County policy, however, by including a notification phase in the design process. So that neighbors can come forward with any concerns like this in a timely way, where it would not cause significant expense and delays in engineering and constructing roads. I guess I'd like to hear some discussion about that.
Duffy: Yes.
Stutsman: Charlie?
Duffy: How wide are our concrete road right-of-ways, like 120 ft.?
Gardner: They vary, but typically I would say 120 ft is getting to the (inaudible).
Duffy: See most other counties go 150, including Cedar County. If you drive over there, you'll find out they have more of a shoulder on their roads. Even the (inaudible) road probably could have had maybe a couple of feet on each side. If you're familiar with the IWV Road, Morse Road, F12, you better stay in the road. So already we have cut back. On the Fuller's property did we save all of the trees? I thought that...
Gardner: Yes.
Duffy: We saved them all?
Gardner: Yes.
Kathy Erenberger: OK, can I ask a question? Didn't it have to be redesigned in order to save that 3rd tree? I know they redesigned it to save the 2 trees and they were fighting for that 3rd tree.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Erenberger: Now I don't understand what the difference is in redesigning in front of the Klines' property and our property for our trees, if in fact we did save this final tree that they were arguing about. Would someone explain that to me?
Jordahl: Yes. Let me try to address that and Mike jump in. The difference that I found controversial as I began to look into this was that the Fullers were being treated one way because the right-of-way had not been acquired there, and that you and Klines were being treated differently because the right-of-way had been acquired. As much as to say, well, we have the right to do this and therefore we're going to and we're not going to make any allowances. Allowances could be made, at this point and Mike has kind of, I think reluctantly, agreed that this is in fact a possibility. But not something that he's eager to do, and something that might cost the County a lot of money to do. It could be argued that in Fullers' case the same kind of costs were incurred. I think you could request, the Board could vote on the question of whether we want to direct Mike to please re-engineer the road in front of your house to do that. I think that, as I looked at it yesterday, you'd have to move the road. I don't think that raising the ditch would do it in front of your house. Mike, maybe you could address that question.
Gardner: I can't say for sure until I would sit down and try it.
Teri Kline: The only question I have about that, though, is like on the Fuller's tree, the 3rd tree, their tree is just as close to the ditch and the road that ours are. I mean Erenbergers might be even further from the road.
Erenberger: Ours is quite a bit further, actually.
Kline: They're almost to the stakes.
Jordahl: The question of what the road is, I think maybe is the middle of the road and where the new road will be.
Kline: Yes, but that length of tree is closer to the center of the road, than...
Erenberger: It's right out on the...
Kline: ...ours are.
Jordahl: I'm talking about the new center of the road here. Again, I'm over my head in terms of engineering terms here, but when there...
Kline: So you changed the center of the road for the Fuller's.
Gardner: No, not...
Jordahl: No, they...
Gardner: We didn't change the center of the road, we only, the adjustments we made were with the ditch elevation.
Jordahl: What I'm talking about with the new center of the road, what I mean by that is that the road kind of wanders a little bit side to side rather than going straight, so in re-engineering the road, what is it exactly, we return to the platted center line, or some compromise between the platted center line and where the road really is?
Gardner: No, we just attempt to run the straight tangents and stay close to the section as we can.
Jordahl: So it's just sort of...
Gardner: With variations at homes or whatever to maximize the use of the existing right-of-way as well.
Erenberger: I would be interested, if I can make this request and have Mike check out the 2 situations, both our trees and the Klines', and see what the cost is going to be and what can be done before it's already done.
Stutsman: Does that push back the project, Mike, to do that?
Gardner: Pardon?
Stutsman: I'm sorry, does that push back the project to do that? To open this up again?
Gardner: It's going to depend on the extent of the re-design. Until we sit down and take a look at it, I really don't know how much is going to be involved, but it's going to take some time. I've got 4 projects under contract right now, another one beginning the 15th, I'm running one man short right now.
Lacina: Does this deal with farm to market money and will this have to be run back through the DOT for approval on a re-design?
Gardner: They would have to sign off on it, yes.
Duffy: The Fuller's trees, again... I thought there was only that buckeye tree, a big tree, but how close are we just a couple of feet anyway from the big tree, aren't we? But how about those other smaller ones?
Gardner: The other ones are being taken out, those are being taken out.
Duffy: Well that's what I'm saying, I asked because a lot of trees are taken out...
Gardner: Yes.
Duffy: That whole line of trees there.
Gardner: Yes.
Duffy: OK, I wondered.
Bolkcom: Mike, what's the status right now for work on the road?
Gardner: The box culverts have been let, construction has begun, utilities are being moved right now, the grading project itself is scheduled for letting on July 15th.
Bolkcom: That would be the time frame if we were going to change the alignment?
Duffy: Change the alignment?
Stutsman: Can we do that?
Bolkcom: I mean if we're going to...
Stutsman: And still stay on schedule?
Bolkcom: It seems unlikely.
Gardner: It would be very difficult. If we were...
Stutsman: Well and then...
Gardner: If it's going to require a major change, that's going to have to go through the DOT, it would probably have to be pulled from the letting, and to do that, I would want to pull it enough in advance so the contractors haven't spent a lot of time coming up with a bid on this design.
Stutsman: I guess what I'm looking at is not only delaying the project and basically I almost hear you saying putting it off for another year. That it just sounds like it's getting complicated enough. But I'm thinking, is it in our best interest to even consider saving those trees? In view of the fact that they shade the road, the ice element and all that? I am not totally convinced that saving those trees is in the long term best interest.
Gardner: In my opinion, no it's not.
Kline: It sounds to me like you're just taking the easy way out. Because it's not your yard.
Stutsman: No, I'm not, because I have to look at...
Kline: It's not your surroundings, you don't pay the taxes in front of that house.
Stutsman: Well I pay taxes in front of my house and I have tress too.
Kline: Yes, but you get to keep your trees.
Jordahl: Actually that's...
Kline: You are closing the door in our face, you're not even giving us a chance for him to check this out...
Stutsman: Well...
Kline: And what difference does it make if the road project is delayed a little bit. I don't understand what the big deal is.
Stutsman: Well we're talking about a whole construction year. So it's just not a couple weeks. We're talking about a whole year to put the...
Kline: Is that the end of the world? I mean I can understand...
Stutsman: Well, when we're considering the whole County and not just you and your trees, and that's what we have to do up here. We certainly can take individual people's interests in mind, but we have to...
Kline: You haven't here.
Erenberger: When we came here a month ago, you guys just basically said you, it doesn't matter what you...
Kline: That's right, we had a whole month that we could have been working on this, and you closed the door in our face. Mr. Jordahl at least opened it back up and has taken into consideration these trees and the property owner. We're talking about our front yard, those trees provide a barrier of safety for my kids, I know I have said this before.
Stutsman: I know, yes.
Kline: The only time there's ever a question of ice on the road, which is very rarely, is in the winter time, you drive for the road conditions, you don't need to be flying down the road at 60 miles per hour, or whatever. You drive for the road conditions. I don't care what road it is, there's going to be trees shading the road. I don't even think that's a valid point at all.
Stutsman: Well I guess we can't dictate how people are going to drive those road conditions in the winter. Unfortunately, although you and I would probably slow down, a lot of people don't.
Kline: That's their problem.
Stutsman: Well, I know it is, but then it becomes our problem when it becomes a liability issue when they go off the road and hit the trees when they're in our right-of-way. That's the way we have to look at it.
Kline: But it's OK to save the Fuller's, but not ours.
Erenberger: Yes.
Stutsman: Well...
Kline: That doesn't make sense.
Erenberger: Explain that.
Kline: Their trees will shade the road too, then.
Gardner: We're removing all their trees that are within the right-of-way. We are being consistent.
Erenberger: The last one they were buying, you're removing that one?
Gardner: No, that's outside the right-of-way. We adjusted the right-of-way so it's not in the right-of-way.
Erenberger: See? You adjusted it. So it's OK to adjust theirs but we can't do...
Stutsman: Well what does the Board want to do? Do they want to direct Mike to look at this design project again and open it up or...
Jordahl: Well I would...
Duffy: Absolutely not for me. Because we're liable to lose the State funding on this road.
Jordahl: I guess there's a...
Duffy: The big tree was right by the roots of that tree, that was close enough. But... And I happen to know that those trees are probably pretty decent trees there that we took out at the Fuller's, in front of the... How many trees are we talking about? 15? 20?
Gardner: Yes, probably that many.
Duffy: And to have... Every time you see a tree, to curve a road, I've got a real problem with that, I notice trees on the south side are growing underneath the high lines. I wonder if somebody doesn't cut them down, but you're going to end up with a beautiful highway and again, you just drive around, drive over...
Kline: But you know what, though? You've got double standards.
Duffy: No, we don't.
Kline: Why is it OK to save the Fuller's tree, but not another tree? I don't understand that? What's the... I mean, our tree is bigger. The tree historical people are putting it on the register because it's one of the biggest ones in Johnson County.
Gardner: As I see it, we're being consistent in our policy of clearing between the right-of-way lines. I guess I can't speak for who the Engineer was at the time, or the Board, but I feel that you would have been treated similarly during the acquisition process when you were asked to donate 17 feet. If you had...
Kline: We weren't asked.
Gardner: ... a concern about the tree...
Kline: The people that own the farm. We didn't have a choice in the matter.
Gardner: OK, but they had the opportunity at that point during the acquisition process, is what I'm saying. So I see it as being consistent. I think the County is being consistent in their policy here.
Erenberger: Well, there's another inconsistency. They took 50 feet from us, 17 feet here, 19 feet there. I don't understand. I mean to me that doesn't make any sense. As we were told, it is said right in our plat or whatever agreement, it says up to 50 feet. It does not say specifically it will need 50 feet. I think that opens it up right there.
Gardner: It's pretty common that we get an additional 17 feet. That's what...
Erenberger: So why did you take 50 in front of our house?
Gardner: That's 17 feet.
Erenberger: I don't understand.
Gardner: The existing right-of-way was 33.
Erenberger: And they added an additional 17 at that time?
Gardner: 17, right.
Jordahl: So there's a consistent 50 feet being talked about here, it's just a...
Gardner: That's fairly consistent, with a 33 foot existing right-of-way. If it's something different than that...
Jordahl: I think there's a middle ground before you summarize.
Stutsman: Well I was going to say, this is not on the agenda. We've taken... We're talking about the Erenberger situation, it kind of...
Jordahl: Well I would argue that we're talking about the clear zone policy and tree preservation, which is on the agenda.
Stutsman: Well we're making a decision about a specific situation and that is not exactly related to the clear zone. I don't see it as the same, but anyway Jonathan, what were you going to say?
Jordahl: Well it's... When I requested that it be put on the agenda, there's some distinction that you could make between an individual case and the policy in general, but the policy in general affects the individual case, so... In terms of the specific case, it would seem that there's room between saying, Mike, please go re-engineer this to save those trees and saying, Mike please look at this and see whether re-engineering this by raising the ditch could save those trees, or whether moving the road 30 feet would be required. One might be reasonable and the other not in terms of what we would actually do to save the trees. You could look at it, sort of assess, eyeball it, rather than go out and then spend every effort and actually start doing the engineering. I think there's room to look and think and ask. Which I assume you've done a hundred times already. That's the individual case question. I think the more global thing that I've addressed earlier...
Bolkcom: Before we go on, can you respond to that?
Jordahl: Yes.
Bolkcom: Whether there's a way to go eyeball it and say, for a very minimal amount of effort, we could do this or that, or is it a full re-design before we really know?
Gardner: I guess I couldn't say with a 100% accuracy if it could be done or what...
Bolkcom: Without really going out and doing it.
Gardner: Yes.
Bolkcom: OK.
Lacina: Well one, I think, valid point was in the future when we have to legally notify the adjoining land owners when we go out and do the reconstruction, then we might put in there a sentence, we encourage any comments, concerns about the construction project to alert them to the fact that they can talk to us about these things in advance. So Mike...
Stutsman: That addresses what you talked about earlier, just a notification thing.
Lacina: The problem that Mike's got too, is you've stepped into this thing in the middle of other people's design and engineering work. So I think within the constraints you have, you did a very good job.
Gardner: Well and I think perhaps what we need to look at, too, is during the zoning and planning process, perhaps making it more clear to the individuals.
Jordahl: Yes.
Gardner: What we're asking for.
Jordahl: Yes, I suggested...
Bolkcom: Or what the implications are.
Jordahl: Excuse me.
Bolkcom: Sorry.
Jordahl: During our discussion yesterday, I suggested that we have something that may follow the deed, that would explain to some extent, what the right-of-way is and means. There had been some discussion in these cases, I think about whether there was a right-of-way acquired or not, or what that exactly meant in terms of the trees and who owned them and so forth. It would be nice to have a paragraph that would follow the deed, that would say this right-of-way has been acquired by the County on this date and it means that at such time as we want to reconstruct a road, we can and will remove any obstacles.
Stutsman: Well I could even see putting a checklist on it. Like when you go to the hospital, they just go through a list of things and say, do you understand this? Do you agree with this? Say OK, do you understand what this means? That we do have the right to come in at a later date and use this.
Jordahl: Right, and that would follow with the deed, so when a person acquired the property, there would be no question that this is the character of the property that you were acquiring, that you had trees now, but that at such time that the road is reconstructed, that they were subject to being removed. That, which is not to prejudice the case about a discussion of possibly the Engineer responding to concerns of those people at the time of engineering of the road and saying, well, gee, maybe we can save these, even though we have the right to remove them. I would like to see the Board address that question as well to basically, without, and to somewhere strike a balance and this is ultimately the Engineer's job, but to strike a balance between preserving trees and creating an S-shape road that would go around every tree that we found. Responsibly holding costs down for the County. I'd like to see a pro-tree policy, but not an unrealistic pro-tree policy.
Stutsman: So, where are we at, are we in agreement to notify land owners from now on when it comes to this process?
Jordahl: Yes, at the beginning of the design phase.
Gardner: Yes, we sure could. I could even include a sentence in that initial survey letter. Just alert them at that point, that's really a little too early probably because we had this discussion yesterday. By the time the roadway construction actually takes place, the property may have changed hands because the initial survey is usually done 2 or 3 years in advance.
Jordahl: Yes, Mike pointed out the Sharon Center Road that had been surveyed four or five times before. So, what came out of our discussion was that the most approximate and reasonable time to have that announcement made is when the actual design of a proposed construction project begins.
Stutsman: So, do we want to put something on the deed then?
Lacina: I think we better have a separate discussion on that.
Stutsman: OK.
Lacina: Once you start, you might as well just, along with that deed, give them a copy of the all regulations in the zoning and platting, and all of the specifications for construction, and I don't know where you're going to stop, if you start this.
Stutsman: Well and I wonder if we could just have a checklist? You know that people go through and just say, do you understand this? I don't know what the process is for the checklist, who's responsible for it, who does it, or whatever. If that's maybe something we need to talk to realtors about or...
Lacina: But the notification process, Doug talked years ago about constructing a bridge, southern part of the County, talked to one of the neighbors, they said, well you know where you're proposing really isn't where the water really comes during the flood. The locals knew the flow, so the idea of just having an opportunity for them to have input in a lot of different areas makes sense.
Stutsman: Yes, that's good.
Jordahl: In terms of the deed question, I think the right-of-way has a particular status within the plat, as being a... And we have had this discussion with regard to culverts and the right-of-way as well, as to who's responsibility it is to deal with things in the right-of-way, who owns it and who maintains it and so forth. That's kind of... Because that's an area where, as I understand it, the property owner continues to own the land, but the County has significant rights to use the land, that it would be, just as I believe there's a similar paragraph that accompanies... I haven't actually seen this to verify this, but in our zoning ordinance, it talks about a right to farm phrase that accompanies the deed. I would think that it's similarly important that this is something that obviously has a tremendous impact with the property owners that we're going to come through here with heavy machinery and remove their trees. That's noticeable.
Stutsman: Do you want to do some more work on that, Jonathan?
Jordahl: Yes, that's kind of a separate question.
Stutsman: Do you want to do some more exploring?
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: See if there isn't some way that we can approach that that wouldn't be over-burdensome and yet I guess help people.
Duffy: Sally, I want to say something about that again. I think it's time for some of the Supervisors to get in that van and drive over to Cedar County, and go down to Muscatine County, Washington County, and Iowa County, and you'll find out again, that our right-of-way is a lot narrower than theirs are. They have these very fine shoulders they can pull off the road and outside of the Sutliff Road, and again we could have used a little more shoulder, but just see what we've got.
Jordahl: Are you suggesting, I'm not opposed to the idea, but are you suggesting that we should acquire more right-of-way and have broader shoulders?
Duffy: I'm suggesting that...
Lacina: There are some roads, like on IWV that...
Duffy: ... are some roads.
Lacina: That's probably appropriate, that is a very dangerous road.
Duffy: It's..
Stutsman: We're going to have to...
Duffy: Too late to do that, now. In the past, that was done and I've been around a while. I've heard that they've tried to get more right-of-way and we can do it this way and now we don't have any shoulder. But, it's a farm to market road with State funding and the sooner we get going on it, the better off we're going to be.
Stutsman: Mike, are you clear then?
Gardner: I believe so.
Stutsman: And we're all in agreement with notification and stuff. What do we want to do with Erenbergers' and Klines' trees and projects? It's not on the agenda, can we make a decision about it? OK, we're going to have to.
Jordahl: Can we what... So do we want to put that on the agenda for action for Thursday?
Stutsman: Mike's not going to be here. Do we feel comfortable doing that without Mike not being here, or do you want to put it on for next Tuesday?
Jordahl: I guess it goes back to the question of would driving up there and looking at those particular situations in mind allow you to give feedback that would be helpful to us about making a decision on Thursday?
Stutsman: We've asked Mike to do a lot between now and next Thursday.
Jordahl: Yes, and it's a long drive up there.
Gardner: I don't think I'm going to be able to visually. There's going to be some that I can say, no absolutely not, because they're not going to be able to save.
Jordahl: Yes.
Gardner: But the rest of them without sitting down and actually putting some time into it, no, I don't think I could tell you with 100% accuracy whether they could be saved or not.
Jordahl: Well it would be useful to have a no, absolutely not answer at least.
Duffy: But still, we've got to keep the project going, or we're going to have to be behind a year. There's competition...
Stutsman: Does the Board want to make a decision on this on Thursday during informal or do you want to wait until Tuesday of next week for discussion?
Gardner: I guess, like I said earlier, my preference is to stick with our past policy, past practice, clear the right-of-way that we have.
Lacina: I guess that will be my position, to support the Engineer.
Stutsman: OK, so we'll put this on for Thursday then for discussion and informal and decision, informal. Is that OK with everybody, is everybody clear on that?
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: OK, thank you, Mike.
Gardner: Thank you.
Stutsman: I think that's everything that we wanted to visit with you about.
Bolkcom: We had one other thing, and it's not on, but I understand people from Regency Mobile Home Park are coming in this morning to visit with us about the dust alleviation problem. Do we want Mike here for that or...
Duffy: Mike's...
Bolkcom: I don't see anybody here from there.
Stutsman: OK...
Bolkcom: But, we can talk about...
Jordahl: It would be useful to have Mike's input, but I don't know, the meeting started at 9:00, it's 10:15.
Lacina: I do want to commend you for a lot of work you're putting in on the roads. I saw you up there on Gable Avenue in the reconstruction, I was driving the roads back and forth to see if the airport was going to affect the north area and you really are all over the County, checking the construction sites and I know he's very busy.
Gardner: I try as much as I can.
Lacina: Doing a good job.
Stutsman: Do you think we...
Bolkcom: We probably don't need him.
Stutsman: I don't think we need Mike.
Lacina: He's got a lot to do.
Gardner: If you have any questions, I'll probably be (inaudible).
Bolkcom: Great.
Stutsman: Thank you.
Bolkcom: Thanks Mike
Jordahl: Thanks, Mike, doing a great job.
Stutsman: Do we want to take a break or continue on with Burnell? Let's go ahead with you. Put your cup down, Steve. He's been here for a long time.
Bolkcom: Good morning.
Stutsman: Good morning.
Jordahl: Uh-oh, look at that stack of paper.
Stutsman: OK...
Chadek: We don't need to go through this line by line.
Stutsman: First item is Fiscal Year 98, Transit Purchase of Service Contract with East Central Iowa Council of Governments.
Chadek: This is the same contract that we've always had with East Central Iowa, just an inventory list, acknowledging that we have possession of these vehicles that have been purchased for Federal funding, as well as budgeted reimbursement amounts for Fiscal Year 98. The total amount of State Transit Assistance plus Federal funding that we will be receiving for Fiscal Year 98 and under this contract would be $42,550. That breaks out to $33,109 STA (State Transit Assistance), and $9,441 in Federal.
Lacina: And this is in a form that you'd recommend approval of this contract then?
Chadek: Yes. I've got copies of those that we can take action on Thursday. I would recommend that we go ahead and approve the contract.
Stutsman: Any questions or discussion? We'll put that on for action on Thursday. Fiscal Year 98 Transit Equipment Lease Agreement with East Central Iowa Council of Governments.
Chadek: I've already gone over that, that's just the acknowledgment that we've got possession of vehicles that have been purchased with Federal funding. There is no lease fee. We acknowledge that East Central Iowa Council of Governments holds title to the vehicles and that we will maintain the vehicles. It's the same contract that we've previously signed. I would recommend that we go ahead and sign that one too.
Bolkcom: OK.
Chadek: For Thursday.
Stutsman: Any comments or questions? Put that on for Thursday then. Discussion regarding Fiscal Year 98 agreement with Systems Unlimited and Johnson County SEATS for transportation services.
Chadek: The total contract amount for the fiscal year with Systems Unlimited would continue to be $30,000.
Stutsman: Is that what it was last year?
Chadek: Yes.
Stutsman: OK.
Chadek: We had budgeted slightly less based on discussions last year. We had budgeted $25,000, but they're actually budgeting $30,000 and they've expressed an interest in signing a contract for that amount this year too.
Stutsman: Any comments? Discussion? Questions? We'll put that on for Thursday then.
Welsh: Sally, may I make a comment? I would repeat. I think that you're already making a huge mistake to sign a separate contract with Systems Unlimited providing subscription services to them until you have worked out your City of Iowa City contractual agreement. Because, they are the ones obligated to provide para-transit service to this population in the Iowa City limits. How they choose to do that will greatly impact the County cooperation. I think that is clearly something that if you all want to take the City off the hook, if you want to provide that service regardless of what Iowa City does, I just think that would be a huge mistake.
Bolkcom: Well it raises a question of how we, frankly, should be dealing with Coralville and University Heights, whether or not we want to have... I assume we... shouldn't assume this, we would need to have language in the agreements that would allow us, and if Iowa City by the end of July decides they're going to do their own para-transit service, allow us a flexibility to potentially get out of a contract with Coralville, for example, if it were more appropriate for Iowa City to work with Coralville, given the fact that they have a shared interest in people trying to get between those communities, rather than have us do it. I suppose we, if Iowa City chooses to do something else, I don't think they're going to, but in case they do, we need the flexibility to figure out what we're going to do, if we're locked into these other contracts. I guess I don't know whether signing a year contract makes sense, if there's language in it that allows us to get out of it, if circumstances change for us.
Stutsman: Is there language in that contract to do that?
Chadek: There's performance language. 30 day termination notice if either party fails to comply with the terms of the contract. Or mutual agreement. There's a mutual agreement modification. However, I think it's a valid enough point that we could put a very specific clause, or ask JCCOG to modify these contracts slightly before Thursday with a very specific clause that says in the case that Iowa City chooses to provide its own para-transit service contract with another provider, Johnson County reserves the right to terminate the contract with 30 days notice.
Lacina: But why would we want to? If they're covering all the costs, the City's not subsidizing this, and this is mutually beneficial to the County and to Systems, why would we want out? We're providing a service that they need to the disabled community to utilize that and if it's covering all the costs...
Bolkcom: You're talking specifically Systems?
Lacina: This contract.
Bolkcom: Yes.
Lacina: If the City in fact is subsidizing this, and we lose that contract, then yes, we're affected, but Burnell, in the past, my understanding was this covered the expenses that we incurred in providing that service.
Chadek: Actually, your other assumption was correct. The contract amount is applied towards Iowa City's contract amount. Iowa City does remain subsidizing the remainder. It does not fully fund the cost of providing the service.
Lacina: Then the verbiage is necessary so that we can get out of it, right?
Welsh: Let me say this, for it to not just read that if Iowa City does its own para-transit, but depending upon negotiations.
Stutsman: I think that needs to be clarified too.
Welsh: It's on the pending negotiations with the City.
Bolkcom: Right.
Stutsman: Depending on the contract with the City of Iowa City. Is the Board in agreement to add that?
Bolkcom: I'm fine with that.
Chadek: OK, I'll work with Kevin Doyle to add that language before Thursday.
Stutsman: OK.
Chadek: I'll distribute those as soon as I get those back, hopefully today.
Stutsman: All right. Discussion regarding first amendment to the Fiscal Year 98 agreement between Systems Unlimited and Johnson County SEATS for transportation services?
Chadek: The first amendment would actually cover the 2nd half of the summer program. We've already signed the 2nd amendment to this fiscal year, so this amendment in the amount of $5,520 would cover a 23 day period, starting July first and ending August first. For a weekday service, with the exception of the 4th of July.
Stutsman: Any questions or discussion? We'll put that on for Thursday then. Discussion regarding Fiscal Year 98 transit agreement with Coralville. Let's include University Heights in that because I think they're probably pretty much the same.
Chadek: OK, the contracts that both cities, Coralville and University Heights, signed for Fiscal Year 97 included an option for each of those cities to renew the contracts for Fiscal Year 98 and Fiscal Year 99 at predetermined amounts. The contract amount that we've prepared with Coralville for Fiscal Year 98 based on that agreement would be $111,872. The original language of the contract specified that we would split the fares with them and adjust if we collected in excess of $5,867. I think from everyone's perspective, it would be much easier to just let Coralville keep 100% of the fares and not do that fare split anymore. So that's the only change in the contract. The total contract amount reflects that. They will be keeping the fares.
Stutsman: There again I wonder if we could add that same clause in these 2 contracts, depending on the negotiations with the City of Iowa City.
Chadek: Certainly. I'll go ahead and add that clause to every contract we've got that's a duration of a full year. For University Heights, they would be exercising the right to renew at a rate of $6,674.
Stutsman: Any comments? Are we ready to sign those then on Thursday?
Bolkcom: Sure.
Stutsman: One month extension for Fiscal Year 98 para-transit agreement between Iowa City and Johnson County. I think we pretty well discussed this last week.
Chadek: Right, I do have a figure for you based on our discussion last week, we were to take the existing contract amount per month, add 5% to that. What we've come up with is $47,182 for a one month extension. The one month extension would continue to keep a fare split. Johnson County would keep the first $2,567 in fares for the month of July. Anything remaining would be given back to Iowa City.
Stutsman: Comments? Put that on for Thursday. Discussion regarding Fiscal Year 98 contract with Heritage Area Agency on Aging for SEATS service.
Chadek: This is a contract with a total contract amount of $8,643. That's totally based on a head count that we provide them. We receive a dollar per trip to congregate meal sites, 50 cents per meal delivered from those meal sites.
Duffy: Burnell, could I ask you a question?
Chadek: Sure.
Duffy: When we were talking yesterday, again, I'm sure that this wasn't your problem, but it's still a problem with me that evidently the SEATS from the folks that... It used to be that they go to the hospital and get picked up, taken no strings attached, to the doctor. But now, it's still just a congregate meal program. So, the difference in funding here would be about, what $3,000 or more we used to get? What did we used to get?
Chadek: For Fiscal Year 97, the total possible contract amount was $11,800.
Duffy: Well see, we're talking $3,200. This seems strange that, this is kind of a high point with me, I get a little hyper when these folks are not supposed to use the vans to go to the doctor or the hospital. But what they did was just, there's over $3,000 that we're not going to get the way it looks, is that right?
Chadek: Well, the contract amount was adjusted downward and that, we didn't discuss it with Heritage, but it's based on all the other requests for funding that they're receiving and allocated out according to need, in their opinion.
Duffy: I think that ought to be one of our top priorities to tell you the truth. Like I say, we can't do a thing about it, so...
Stutsman: We ready to put that on for Thursday? Anything else, Burnell?
Chadek: That's all I've got, I guess under other we can just say that we're still waiting to hear from the City, their specific proposals. You haven't set a meeting date officially yet for next negotiation, have we? I don't believe we have. No, OK.
Stutsman: OK, well.
Bolkcom: Thanks.
Jordahl: I don't want to introduce any ill will with the City, but I understand that this extension is actually somewhat favorable in terms over the contract that we're presently proposing with Iowa City. I guess just as a general principal, it would be nice if there were some incentive included for Iowa City to move to agree to the contract. Actually, it would be advantageous to just continue these extensions.
Stutsman: I think it's our decision whether we want to continue them. It's my understanding that we offered a 30 day extension. Then it's up to the Board to decide whether we want to continue that.
Jordahl: Sure. Well it's just a minor point, it just seems like if we're agreeing to a figure for an extension, that why are we making that figure lower than the contract?
Stutsman: Well...
Chadek: It is about $2,000 lower than what we budgeted for the full year contract.
Lacina: That's 5% over last year's contract.
Chadek: It's, yes, 5% over. It's just a simple adjustment upward. So that does not account for anything other than...
Lacina: Wages.
Chadek: Well, for Fiscal Year 1997, we agreed to a 10% discount, a good faith discount. We had discussed for Fiscal Year 98, offering them a 5% discount. So that adjustment basically takes care of that and nothing else. I would recommend that if we have to extend it another month that we look hard at the figure that we've actually budgeted.
Bolkcom: Good point.
Stutsman: OK, thank you Burnell.
Chadek: OK, well I'll make the changes. Actually, the contract for Iowa City, I should have mentioned this. The contract for Iowa City that Kevin Doyle provided and transposed 2 of the numbers. He actually prepared a contract that specifies $47,812, instead of $47,182. If we don't have him fix the typo, that goes just a little bit towards making up the deficit.
Jordahl: Do we have any more typos out there?
Chadek: No, that would be a 6.4% increase, rather than a 5% increase.
Jordahl: You'd better bring that to his attention.
Chadek: I'll have him fix the typo and have him add the clause to those other 2 contracts, I'll get those back to you as soon as he can produce those for me.
Bolkcom: Thank you.
Stutsman: OK, Beverlee, you've been very patient, could we take a 5 minute break? Is that going to cause...
Nutrition Advisory Board Chairperson Beverlee Clearman: No, that's fine.
Stutsman: OK, why don't we just take a short...
Recessed at 10:34 a.m.; reconvened at 10:40 a.m.
Stutsman: OK, I think we'll go ahead and get started. OK, back in session, we have Beverlee Clearman, Chairperson for the Nutrition Advisory Board. This is a report on the Fiscal Year 98 budget contract for the Senior Dining Program. Good morning.
Clearman: Good morning.
Jordahl: Good morning.
Bolkcom: Good morning.
Clearman: Well, this is our ongoing process.
Stutsman: It's coming to closure, though.
Clearman: It's coming to closure.
Senior Dining Director Mike Foster: It's a means to an end here, we hope.
Clearman: I believe you all received a packet of information. The top sheet is entitled Memorandum to Johnson County Board of Supervisors. OK, as stated on this memorandum attached to this you will find a copy of memorandum that we sent to Tom Miskimen to summarize our understanding of our June 10 meeting, at which a couple of you members were present. I'm not quite sure what format you want me to take here, do you want me to read through these items and we can discuss them as we go, or affirm them, or what would you like to do in terms of...
Stutsman: Does the Board need any clarifications, do you want Beverlee to read...
Lacina: There is one point.
Stutsman: OK.
Lacina: That I... On the 2nd page of the letter to Mr. Miskimen is dated June 13,1997. Last paragraph, County representatives indicated that as the 99 budget is prepared, they will review the County funding for all elderly programs to see if some County tax dollars can be appropriated for the Nutrition Program. This will be done as part of the County budgeting process. I thought we were clear that the County was not going to allocate tax dollars to the program since we haven't in the past. So I guess my question is...
Bolkcom: I don't know if that's accurate.
Lacina: When you indicated this...
Clearman: OK.
Lacina: ...to Mr. Miskimen, how did that take place?
Clearman: OK, it is my recollection that what was involved in this review of County funding was a review of the moneys that are currently paid to the Senior Center as part of a 20% moneys paid for sort of room and board of the various programs that are currently and have in the past been housed in the Senior Center. That figure has not changed given that some other County groups have moved out of the Senior Center. You're still paying the same amount of money with only the Nutrition Program being housed there. SEATS has moved out, Adult Day Care has moved out. It was just simply that you were going to take another look at those funds. I don't know that it was specifically stated that you would then find moneys that would be directly to the Nutrition Program itself. I think it was more directed towards a review of where your money is going in terms of the Senior Center itself. So...
Lacina: But the way this reads...
Clearman: The way this reads is confusing.
Lacina: If they referred back to it in the future, Miskimen's going to come back to us and say dated June 13, you said, your representatives that you would be seeing if tax dollars can be appropriated for the Nutrition Program, which this doesn't refer to Senior Center or anything, it just simply says tax dollars.
Clearman: Well we can certainly revise the wording here to something that would be more acceptable.
Welsh: Steve, if I could say... What I heard that the Federal review of County funding of all (inaudible) Senior Center. There was no commitment made that said we are going to find the tax dollars. The only thing said was the review of those and see if... So at least my reading of that is not a commitment for the County to use tax dollars with much success. We're going to look at all of the elderly funding you all discuss that jointly. (Inaudible) Sally and Joe took on themselves to say that sometimes what you as the Board says.
Lacina: But someone coming in new Bob, and reading this for the first time, and not understanding the background will read this and see if we can allocate, appropriate County tax dollars.
Bolkcom: Let me say, we have not voted, we do not have a Board position on this question. So to say we're not going to ever provide any County resources to this program is, we haven't decided that.
Stutsman: What...
Lacina: But even more important to me is the fact that we've almost gone the other direction since we don't have a policy. We said, we are going to look to see if there's going to be appropriation.
Bolkcom: It should be a neutral statement I think.
Stutsman: Yes, I think just say they will review the County funding for all elderly programs period. And just leave the...
Clearman: Then leave off the rest of that sentence.
Lacina: That would be better. But this has already been sent.
Foster: This has already been.
Lacina: I think maybe just as a clarification in the future.
Stutsman: I guess I would agree with that, too, just so that there's not any misunderstandings or whatever. I don't know what...
Duffy: What are we doing with that Sally, I'll agree with Steve...
Stutsman: Well I think what we're going to do is just send a letter of clarification up to Tom and just explain that we're just going to do a review of the funding for our elderly programs and not make any decisions or commitment at this time.
Welsh: (inaudible) not a commitment.
Stutsman: Yes.
Bolkcom: Well I think one...
Stutsman: Because the Board hasn't formally acted on any kind of decision with that, it's just...
Jordahl: What I heard reflected here was some, a reflection of a policy of ... though as Steve said if we hadn't had done this in the past, and I guess implicit in that was that we haven't made any change in our minds or policies about that.
Stutsman: I think the review is the first step and then we'll just see where we're at. We may make some changes, we may not, we'll just have to evaluate it at that time.
Bolkcom: I think implicit in this review is having Mike present the nutrition budget when we go through budgets as part of the County budget process so that we can stay hooked in to what's going on.
Duffy: That probably should be... That's a good point. That maybe that should begin this (inaudible).
Jordahl: Yes, maybe that's what should be said instead of the...
Duffy: Instead of this. Because it looks like we're indeed going to help with Federal funding. More and more of this will come back down to County, we just don't have the (inaudible).
Welsh: Let me say before this (inaudible) to, copies were given to your 2 representatives present at the meeting. I did not get a chance to show it to Sally and Sally did raise the question to make sure that was not a commitment at least in our discussion. We did not see that as a commitment of County dollars.
Lacina: Well it needs to be clarified, Bob, because again, you understand the background. When somebody coming in new reading that sentence will possibly see it a different way.
Stutsman: So if a memo can just be sent over, I think that will take care of it. Getting back to the budget, does anybody have any specific questions about what's being proposed or...
Bolkcom: I did, regarding the Elderly Waiver, just wanted to check in to make sure that the paperwork and requirements of that were all understood and solidified because somebody's going to start in the next couple of weeks here.
Foster: Bob and I did meet with Lynnette yesterday so she's investigating perhaps brainstorming with other members of her staff and Tom Slockett. We've got a ways to go before we work out the details of the budget, so it's software issues, those kinds of issues that we're dealing with or whether the computer's compatible with what our needs are here. So, we've got to get it ironed out, and I think we will, I'm optimistic that we will.
Bolkcom: OK. So as of July 1, we'll be getting money from Elderly Waiver then? Or what time frame do you think?
Foster: We should see some revenue generated after July 1.
Bolkcom: OK.
Foster: Yes. Then we do have some residual from this year that we can appropriate to start.
Bolkcom: OK, thanks.
Welsh: I think (inaudible) in conversation yesterday that it seems we would need 4 income items, one from Heritage, one from County relating to the budget that you have, then the other County programs which would have an income from the Elderly Waiver Program and from others. For example, the last (inaudible) from the fundraising activities and some money could be generated there for County. At least our preliminary projections are that other Elderly Waivers, those County funds, would handle the raw food costs, would handle the $6,896 that should be a balance, just in the Elderly Waiver fund of $1,999.
Jordahl: This is shown where, Bob?
Welsh: The Elderly Waiver dollars, those figures are (inaudible). But when we talk in terms of the other documents we've given you, that the Elderly Waiver will generate approximately $11,907 this next year. Those dollars can be used to cover the raw food cost so no Heritage dollars would be used to cover those raw food costs. Second, those dollars would be appropriated to the County's share of this Senior Dining, Home Delivered Meals, but it puts you on page 2 of that shows $6,896. (inaudible) Elderly Waiver $1,999.
Bolkcom: OK, so do you have a sheet with revenues on it? We're seeing expenditures here only. Do you have a revenue page that we don't have?
Foster: We've got the last 6 months of activity from the County.
Bolkcom: In terms of what... Are you projecting revenue to Heritage on a separate form?
Welsh: On this, the revenue, I think that's a good point, Joe. The revenue would be where the budget (inaudible).
Bolkcom: Right.
Welsh: $360 projected revenue would be $353,778 from Heritage, $6,896 from the County.
Bolkcom: I see, OK.
Welsh: Those are revenue sources.
Bolkcom: And the $6,800, you're saying the $6,800 is all waiver and not... OK.
Welsh: It would be covered by the waiver.
Bolkcom: Right. OK. Well I know, and we've talked other fundraising activities, so you haven't budgeted any money for any other fundraising activities for 98.
Welsh: We talked with Mitch last time just to be a budget item of at least $1,000.
Bolkcom: OK.
Welsh: So that would be... I know there's likely of him being a contribution of just $1,000.
Bolkcom: OK.
Lacina: A $1,000 from...
Welsh: Fundraising activities on that last sheet.
Lacina: And who told her to do this?
Welsh: We suggested that was a possibility. She said she would meet some budget (inaudible). We're going to have income coming in and...
Bolkcom: We can't mix the revenue. You can't mix Elderly Waiver with profit fundraising.
Lacina: Exactly.
Welsh: So we would just (inaudible).
Bolkcom: Yes.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: Well I would say, like other budgets, and I guess we'll do this when we review this budget for 1999 later this year, the Board typically likes to see all the expenditures and all the revenues in those defined as best we can so we can make some assessment. So maybe the Heritage form doesn't lend well to that, but I think as we look at next year's budget we're going to see a more specific break out.
Clearman: Right, this is just the format that Heritage asked for. That's why it's presented in this fashion, but...
Foster: We can certainly duplicate it to any form you would desire next year.
Stutsman: Any other, and this, the way this is put together is OK with Heritage? That they...
Clearman: Yes.
Stutsman: It was in agreement with them.
Welsh: (Inaudible).
Stutsman: OK. Do we have a contract to sign? Have they sent that down?
Welsh: They have not, if you'll notice on the memorandum which was put together yesterday because I ran over some of these items, Charlie and I realized that for this memo to be helpful, this memorandum just suggests in light of the discussion, Mike forwarded to Heritage, the budget (inaudible) County funding along with an explanation Board to take action Thursday. Authorizing the chair to sign the contract for Heritage based on the specific contract.
Jordahl: I'm wondering for others who are interested in what we're reading silently, if there's a copy of this for anyone who may be interested.
Stutsman: I don't know, do you have other copies?
Welsh: I do not, I gave...
Clearman: We can certainly...
Jordahl: Is anyone interested in seeing a copy of this document regarding the Senior Dining?
Stutsman: Any other discussion? Is the Board ready to put this on then for Thursday for the chairperson, authorize a chairperson to sign the agreement?
Bolkcom: Sure.
Lacina: But we don't have the agreement, we're just authorizing them to sign it.
Stutsman: No, when we get the contract, it will just authorize me to sign it when it does come. But basically, they'll say what's outlined in this memorandum.
Clearman: Right.
Stutsman: OK, I think that's it, unless there's any more comments or discussion? Charlie? Do you have any...
Duffy: No.
Stutsman: OK.
Peters: You might want to get clarification from Mike as to the procedure when the contract comes from Heritage Agency on Aging to whom it is delivered and then how they will proceed to get it signed and copies back.
Stutsman: Can you elaborate on that, Mike?
Foster: Typically have they sent it to this office? I've never received it.
Peters: Does it go to you, Reverend Welsh?
Welsh: I have gotten it in the past, but I think (inaudible).
Stutsman: Yes, I would think so too.
Foster: We can include that in the memo.
Stutsman: All right.
Peters: The only reason I mention that... In responding to some of the questions that they have asked in the past year, we haven't always had a copy, a fully executed copy. For some reason they are always waiting to send it back to the Board.
Welsh: It's a very strange process because the County signs it and then sends it to people...
Peters: Makes for a lot of...
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Peters: ... back and forth through the mail, so...
Welsh: OK.
Peters: You'll get it then, Mike.
Welsh: Have Tom sign it.
Foster: We can accommodate that, sure.
Welsh: Tom Nielson.
Peters: Did you want to ask Tom if he'd like to get the signatures they need first, because they're already going to have the commitment that it's going to be approved. It will be approved before we actually get the contract.
Foster: So you want them, you want them to sign it first then?
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Foster: Before it's generated here.
Peters: It would really make handling of the document...
Foster: All right, well we'll request that as well.
Peters: ... so many times. That would be great.
Foster: OK.
Stutsman: OK, anything else?
Foster: Yes, I have my reservations whether they will do that, but we'll certainly try.
Clearman: We can ask.
Stutsman: OK, thank you.
Foster: You're welcome.
Clearman: Yes, thank you.
Bolkcom: Good work.
Welsh: I'd like to say that (inaudible). Taking off her 2nd day for...
Clearman: I'm in a state of confusion.
Bolkcom: Does your boss know?
Clearman: That I'm in this state of confusion? No.
Stutsman: Business from the County Auditor. Discussion regarding fiscal year 98 appropriations and transfers. While we're waiting for Lynnette to come up, we've pretty well taken care of business from the Board of Supervisors. Let's...Reports? Charlie do you have any reports?
Duffy: Nothing important I don't believe.
Stutsman: OK, Steve?
Lacina: Nothing.
Stutsman: Jonathan?