Jordahl: I attended the first meeting of the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Committee last night out at Secondary Roads. Found it to be an interesting process of people kind of feeling out how they're going to be working together, how different perspectives will fit. I think similarly what we discussed earlier about the design process with roads that this is going to be an interesting 2 way street process of people given feedback about their perspectives on the roadside vegetation management and then the Roadside Vegetation Manager providing education to them, so it will be back and forth, I think it's going to be a real good thing. They discussed having a possible demonstration of prairie planting at the Fairgrounds and that's something that's going to have to be taken up with the Fair Board to see if there's room for that, how they would view it, but that's part of the general charter of that group which is education for the public, research and demonstration and public education. So I think it's going to help a lot to move that forward in the County. Russ Bennett is the Roadside Vegetation Manager and Weed Eradication Officer for the County. He gave a statement that I think is something that ought to be of comfort to people across the County is that no one solution is applicable in all situations. There are a variety of different approaches there. Places where mowing is appropriate there, even places where spraying may be appropriate. There are places where prairie can be very, very helpful. So, I think it's important to understand that what we're looking at here is really a balanced consideration of the advantages and particularly cost advantages there may be to using prairie plantings and burning as opposed to traditional methods of roadside vegetation control. So I'm really encouraged by that progress. Anybody who wants to look into e-mail, what they're going to be doing with networking this afternoon, the Networking Committee is meeting out at the DHS office to look at what they have for communication at the State level and looking at the e-mail package that they use there. I'm really also encouraged that we're taking our next step in Strategic Planning on Monday the 30th, where we will again be meeting with Tim Shields of the University's Public Policy, thank you, to carry forward discussions of the Board's operating methods and various needs and just talking about how we work. I really like that.
Duffy: That's at 8:00 in the morning?
Jordahl: 8:00 in the morning, Monday the 30th. 8:00 a.m. on Monday.
Stutsman: Joe?
REPORT (BOLKCOM): PROPOSED MEETING WITH JOHNSON COUNTY CONSERVATION BOARD
Bolkcom: I received a call from a member of the Conservation Board and they are still interested in having us come out, visit with us about the environmental ed center, show us where it's going to be and apparently they have some design, some plans back that they would like us to look at. So they were interested in seeing if we could work out a time that would be mutually convenient for everybody which is not an easy thing to do. We're looking at the week of July 7th. That's a possible week.
Stutsman: That won't work for Jonathan.
Jordahl: Out of town.
Bolkcom: Is that right, that's right, OK.
Stutsman: That will work for me.
Bolkcom: Never mind.
Lacina: I don't have my schedule.
Stutsman: We all going to go out at the same time?
Bolkcom: How about the 14th? Ideally it would be easier for them and us to try and coordinate a time, I think. Instead of having 5 different trips.
Jordahl: 14th works for me.
Stutsman: 14th?
Bolkcom: The week of the 14th. I don't know what time they meet, do they meet the 16th or the 9th? What is it the 2nd Wednesday, the 3rd Wednesday?
Stutsman: I don't know.
Jordahl: Do we want to have our trip coincide with the Conservation Board meeting? Is that what you're suggesting?
Bolkcom: I don't know. How about the 16th, well we have a busy week that week, the 16th.
Stutsman: Yes. I've got a meeting from 4 to 6 that afternoon.
Bolkcom: OK.
Stutsman: 17th is out. The 14th? Monday?
Bolkcom: I've got a conflict with that.
Lacina: I don't have my schedule.
Jordahl: That is zoning...
Stutsman: Well maybe what we...
Bolkcom: Maybe I should find out when they meet again and...
Stutsman: All right. Why don't you do that.
Bolkcom: Find out where and I'll bring it back Thursday.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: That's all I have.
Stutsman: OK. I had just a couple of things. One, I got a call from Al Axeen yesterday and he would like a letter of support from the Board of Supervisors for a grant that they are looking for through the Department of Education for a 4 year old at risk Head Start group. The purpose of the grant would be to allow them to efficiently serve more children with wrap around funds. There's as usual a quick turn around time, they need the letter by Friday, so I was wondering if the Board would be OK to put this on for authorizing me to send a letter of support for Thursday?
Bolkcom: That sounds fine.
Lacina: Sure.
Stutsman: Would that be all right? OK. The other thing is that on July 9th, this is in connection with the Innovation Zone. There is going to be a public forum on welfare reform. Fortunately Johnson County is one of the few counties that have been elected to do a pilot project on this. This is through Vic Elias and the Public Policy, or the Iowa Forum for Children and Families. The goal of the workshop is to help community stakeholders to be proactive in responding to Federal and State welfare reform. So it's going to be July 9 from 9:00 in the morning until 3:00 in the afternoon at the Iowa City Public Library. I will circulate more information about that, but I just wanted to alert people on that and I think it should be real good to bring people together from the community about welfare reform, how we can address what welfare reform means to us, explain the Johnson County Innovation Zone project and get the community together to start organizing and how we can address some of these concerns.
REPORT (DUFFY): PROPOSED MEETING WITH MUSCATINE COUNTY
Duffy: Sally, did we record on our meeting with Muscatine County Board of Supervisors who we're going...
Bolkcom: No.
Duffy: The last... was that...
Bolkcom: Thursday.
Stutsman: Thursday.
Duffy: That's Thursday. About the problem with County Line Road between Johnson County and Muscatine County and the bridge out. The way we left it was there might be a way that we wouldn't... The bridge would cost $110,000. That's a lot of money for the amount of traffic that goes over the bridge. We put it in, but beings as the other one's closed, there might be a way out of it, just kind of head east, snake it around, we won't have to... There won't be any bridge involved. That would be a lot. I think the dollars were, do you remember, about $24,000...
Jordahl: 23, 24.
Duffy: Half and half, so I guess that they're going to research it out because the man that owns the property that we'd have to use for this road wasn't there. So whether they'll probably contact this property as soon as he can.
Jordahl: Yes, I want to carry forward that comment a little bit. I think it was a really creative piece of work on somebody's part down there to...You think we've been approaching this, here the bridge is out, the bridge is out, we've got to fix the bridge, can we afford it? Somebody came up with a way of going around it. Saying well we don't need a bridge and use existing railroad right-of-way, which is already built up to build the road. It's just...
Duffy: To get on the railroad right-of-way, would be a plus.
Jordahl: Yes, a real creative solution.
Duffy: But if we don't do that, then I don't know what we'll do.
Stutsman: Anything else? Lynnette? Thank for coming up.
DEPUTY AUDITOR LYNNETTE HULTMAN: PROPOSED BUDGET TRANSFERS AND AMENDMENTS
Deputy Auditor Lynnette Hultman: Sure.
Bolkcom: Good morning.
Hultman: Good morning. Just a couple of things in preparation for the new fiscal year. The departmental appropriations, when you appropriate your new fiscal year budget, in the past several years you've done that on a quarterly basis. I just wanted to check and see if you wanted to continue that on a quarterly basis.
Stutsman: Works fine, doesn't it?
Hultman: OK, that will be on your agenda Thursday then, for the first quarter appropriations. The other item is on the transfer resolutions, between General Basic and General Supplemental. Then General Basic and Rural Basic to Secondary Roads. In the past, you've approved a resolution stating the maximum amount for the fiscal year. Do you want to do that in the same format for this fiscal year?
Lacina: This one's a little different than the rest in that we've got the construction season, which is a huge consumer of cash and so instead of doing quarterly, obviously you're going to be blown out of the water during the summer months. I do think this is best just to do the maximum transfer.
Hultman: OK.
Stutsman: Good.
Jordahl: If you have suggestions, though, Lynnette, if you're going to do the quarterlies, in other programs...
Hultman: Actually, with the transfers, I think that's probably the best way, just to do a maximum, rather than... That saves publication costs too. Rather than do monthly resolutions or quarterly resolutions or whatever, so that works fine.
Jordahl: You're talking about Secondary Roads?
Hultman: Uh-huh.
Jordahl: I'm talking about actually the first point that you raised.
Hultman: Oh, the appropriations?
Jordahl: Yes, if you bring it to us as a question. I'm wondering from your point of view, are there alternatives that should be discussed, or are you OK with the quarterly...
Hultman: I'm OK with the quarterly, or I'd be OK with an annual one, too. It doesn't make any difference to me.
Lacina: There are some allocations when we do a front funding, then in your appropriation, you're going to reflect that full amount.
Hultman: Right.
Lacina: In that quarter so we do have flexibility to make those adjustments.
Hultman: Uh-huh.
Lacina: Because there are some one time up front payments.
Jordahl: But in terms of publication costs, as you just suggested and to Secondary Roads, I'm wondering, I assume that there's some advantage to us of having monitoring the progress of the budget or something, having it come before us quarterly, but... If there are efficiencies, large efficiencies, I'm not sure how large that would be to be gained, I'd certainly like to hear a proposal for doing it otherwise. But only if it gives us the kind of oversight and control that we want.
Lacina: Probably better oversight as Lynnette's reports to us and the percentage of expenditures per month. I think that's excellent, the job you do on that. It keeps us really a good handle of where we're at.
Jordahl: So, are you saying that the quarterly appropriations are not necessary?
Lacina: No, I'm not saying that. The year that the State did the de-appropriation for DHS, we were 6 months into the year. Then we had to cut a year's funding and we ran into some real tough decisions as to whether the doors were going to close in May or what we were going to do. So by doing that, we had to double the amount that we had to cut in the remaining 6 months. From that incident and a couple of other things that we wanted better control, we started doing quarterly appropriations instead of at the beginning of the year, just saying here's the money. This way if we see 6 months into the year, we need to make some adjustments, we're allowed to do that. I think the 2 mechanisms are different. One is tracking the money which Lynnette does a great job with reports to see where we're at in the budget. The other is the appropriation, or the mechanism by which we can say, based on these reports, here's what you need to do. So I think they both have a purpose, but in different ways.
Jordahl: That makes sense, thanks.
Stutsman: So are we ready to put on for Thursday, just to do the quarterly, and then...
Hultman: Yes, Thursday will be on the quarterly appropriations then. Then the transfer resolutions, we'll probably have those on in July as we get started with the fiscal year because we don't actually do the transfers until the end of the month. So you'll see those on the agenda, probably in a couple of weeks.
Stutsman: All right, good. Any other questions for Lynnette? Thank you for coming up.
Bolkcom: Thank you.
Stutsman: Anything else from business from the Board of Supervisors? Discussion from the public? Anybody that wants to say anything from the public?
CITIZENS FROM REGENCY MOBILE HOME PARK: DUST ALLEVIATION
Jordahl: I think, Mrs. Beard perhaps some questions about dust on Freund Avenue.
Stutsman: Do you want to come up to the table so that the Auditor can get your name for the minutes? We have plenty of chairs so...
Jordahl: That's all right, we can scoot more chairs up.
Stutsman: Could you please identify yourself for the...
Paul Beard: Anyway, I'm Paul Beard. This is my wife, Ruth.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: Good morning.
Beard: Then we have some other members, people who live in our park down, that famous park down there, used to be called Indian Lookout. Now, it's called Regency. But anyway...
Edith Blanton: I'm Edith Blanton, I live at 160 Apache Trail, Regency.
Beard: We're eating a lot of dust down there. The County tore that road up that goes on the south side of the park. I guess the reason they tore it up, it was a good black top road, but there were a few potholes in it. Well instead of fixing the potholes, they came in with big machinery and tore it all up. Now they brought up the black dirt up on top and then they worked it down, and then they put coarse rock on it.
Ruth Beard: Which is dusty.
Beard: Well it's on the south side of the park and you know where the wind is in the summertime, from the south. We are covered with dust. If none of you want to believe it, just come out.
Ruth Beard: You were out, you know what it's like.
Jordahl: Yes, I've seen it, there's dust.
Beard: Yes. So we wondered what you can do about it. We're eating too much dust. I don't think we're going to take it without some protest. So what you can do about it. You'll have to discuss that among yourselves I guess to decide, but...
Jordahl: A little bit of history might be helpful, I don't mean to cut you off, are you finished with your remarks?
Beard: OK.
Jordahl: I mean I... I'm not sure if I'm the best person to give the history on this? Steve, Charlie, you may be more familiar with it, but I understand, let me put it in those terms that the ownership of the trailer court was paying for dust alleviation, oil I think it was on that road, up until about 3 years ago. The series of applications of oil had resulted in a compacted surface that very much resembled black top. It was sort of a little like seal coat and an oil and gravel mixture. There had been some complaints from residents in recent years since the dust alleviation had not been continued by the new ownership of the trailer court, that some holes had developed in the road and that what residents were looking for was patching of those holes. But, I guess in the judgment of the roads department, since the dust alleviation program was no longer in place there, that rather than patching holes, the best thing to do to achieve a maintainable, economically maintainable surface, was to scarify it and go back to gravel. This results in dust. In a conversation that I had with a woman that was the manager of the court presently, apparently the corporation which is I guess based in California, not in Iowa, that currently owns this is not interested in paying for dust alleviation on Freund Avenue because that's a County road and they figure it's the County's business. So that's kind of where things sit for right now. To go beyond that in discussions that I've had with the Secondary Roads Engineer, Mike Gardner who was in here earlier for a long time, was basically and also with the Planning and Zoning Office, the trailer court has an access on a hard surface road. That's the access on the north end. Residents can have access to a hard surface road there, however, there are speed bumps on the north end and as I was down there visiting, I guess if I lived on the southern end of the trailer court, I would go out on the gravel myself because it's closer, quicker, rather than driving through the whole park to get to the hard surface road. I'd go on the gravel myself. So there's a position of the County of well, you've got access to the hard surface road and that's the way you should be going out, of course, human nature is going to want to go the shortest route to the fastest way to get somewhere and that means there's going to be a lot of traffic on the gravel.
Ruth Beard: There is a lot of traffic on that road.
Stutsman: But it's a dead end road, isn't it? So it's just...
Beard: No, well it is clear up to the hill, a farm, and then it's dead end.
Ruth Beard: It goes through the whole trailer court and this is what...
Beard: Goes right past the trailer court.
Jordahl: Yes, they said...
Ruth Beard: We wouldn't be mad if they would travel 20, 30 miles and hour, but they go 50 and 60.
Blanton: No, they go as hard as they can go.
Ruth Beard: They don't care, nobody cares.
Jordahl: I wanted to add one more point here, and that is the numbers of people involved. I think one factor in looking at this situation would be the traffic count on that road which we don't have a current one since the road's been made a dead end road with the completion of 218. So, but to project what the numbers may be, I'm informed that there are 220 occupied trailers there. If we estimate 3 people per trailer, that's 660 people being affected by the dust, and conceivably some fraction of those, maybe half or more, using the southern way to go out to the highway. So you've got conceivably 300 or so people driving there and making more than one trip a day, so you've got a lot of utilization there in that one quarter mile of road, creating a lot of dust. So that's kind of the situation. It doesn't necessarily imply any one solution. It could, the County could choose to pay for dust alleviation there, or the County could say that, no we have a policy that says otherwise. I think I've heard from other members of the Board that there's a long standing and consistently held policy of the County that we don't pay for dust alleviation in situations like this, but I guess I'd like to hear others speak to what the like this criteria are because my experience with dust alleviation contracts generally is more limited. The other alternative would be to have the residents of the trailer court pay for this themselves, and I don't know what the numbers are, what the cost of dust alleviation would be. I've heard a figure of $490. I'm not sure what that was a figure for. Let's say hypothetically that were the amount for an application of calcium chloride for this existing road surface, $490 spread among 660 people wouldn't be that big of a deal. That would be roughly $2.50 per trailer. You could pay for dust alleviation yourselves and that would help to resolve the dust problem. So the question is, I guess what I want to point to here is this problem can be resolved. The question is how is it going to be resolved. Is it going to be resolved by you residents getting together to pay for it, is it going to be resolved by the management of the trailer court paying for it, which you could put pressure on them to do, I think, or does the County have some role here where we ought to be participating in that. I guess the reason you're here is to discuss that 3rd option as to whether the County has any...
Beard: Well I'd like to point out how much taxes each one of us pay on our homes and then I don't know, how much taxes the park pays on that 40 acres of ground, but it's no small amount. It's no small amount what we total all together in the taxes we pay to the County. So, why can't the County...
Ruth Beard: It seems to me that they could surely do a quarter of a mile with all the taxes they get.
Beard: To keep the dust down, you bet.
Ruth Beard: If it was 4, or 5, or 6, or 10 miles, it would different, but a quarter of a mile, I'm sure it's not going to be...
Beard: Do you stop to think what the County gets income off of that 40 acre field.
Duffy: OK, and Sally...
Stutsman: Charlie, did you have a comment?
Beard: Plus, the...
Stutsman: Oh, I'm sorry.
Beard: What they get from our homes.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Beard: Taxes on our homes. I have on our home, it would total up to about $33,552 a year. Then the taxes on the park, I don't know, but I'm sure you know.
Jordahl: I don't have that figure...
Beard: You may not have it, what I mean...
Jordahl: What was quoted to me was about $27,000 was quoted to me by someone, but I'm not sure if that's accurate.
Beard: All right, then why can't the County afford to put a dust free road past us?
Stutsman: Charlie, did you have a comment?
Duffy: Oh, I'm very familiar with the road.
Beard: Yes, I'm sure you are.
Duffy: One third mile, just a little longer than that.
Stutsman: Quarter of a mile, I think.
Lacina: Well they're just talking about...
Beard: Quarter of a mile, 80 rods.
Duffy: Well just the trailer court down to the end of the road?
Beard: Well down to the end of the park. And then it's gravel from there on up the hill.
Duffy: But, yes, the problem is together with your taxes, about 56% of the tax goes to schools, about 38% goes to the County, and the Secondary Roads only gets 34% of the 38% which is not very much. There are other agreements in the County like out by me, I don't know if you know it or not.
Beard: Yes, I know...
Duffy: But Fox Avenue, that's all paved by the housing addition. They've got a hard surface road. Frantz addition was one of the first ones off of Prairie Du Chien Road and about the same number of homes, but you have a couple mile stretch here, that's all paved. Polk Avenue's another one. With 600 miles of County road, dust is a problem, there isn't any doubt about it. I would say in a case like this, now tree sap or calcium chloride is about $2,400 per mile. So it should take about a 3rd of that, that's pretty close, maybe it isn't quite a 3rd, about $800.00. But, I certainly would ask the owners if they couldn't pay a few bucks towards this, because I don't know what we're going to do if the other agreements that we have with the other housing developments. I would think that they would probably want to do this, this would enhance about 220 trailers there. That's what I'd do, I'd try to get a hold of them and say, hey look, we need a few bucks. That's the way it was before they bought it, but anyway, that situation of taxes, I pay taxes too, but there's about 56% goes to the schools and then there's 2% to townships, and 4 (inaudible), stuff like that, but it's only 38% and again, for roads, it's 34 of the 38%, that's not very much.
Bolkcom: We've had a long standing policy that when a development goes in, principally new, but we have these long standing agreements with home owners in subdivisions around the County, that if the impact of their subdivision has an impact on the road, in particular dust, that we require them, as part of getting an approval of say their plat, or to basically agree to pay for the dust alleviation. Typically, we find that in say a new subdivision, somebody's building 30 houses, we approve it, the developer frequently in the early years pays for that dust alleviation. Then, over time the homeowners, when people's lots are sold and houses are built. We have dozens of those agreements on County roads where homeowners are paying for that. If we didn't have those agreements. I think this case is, not only do we have a lot of homeowners affected by it, it's a very short piece of road, it's not a lot of money, it's more of a principal issue. If we begin to go down the path of saying it's not a lot of money, these folks pay taxes and the County assumes the cost of it, we stand to open the door to other homeowners that live all over the County coming in that pay a huge amount of taxes on very expensive houses and subdivisions all over the County saying, you did it, you paid for their dust alleviation, you're making us pay for ours, you the County ought to come up with some money here. If we did that, we would, taxes would be much higher than they are now. We'd need a lot more money in the roads budget to be able to afford dust free surfaces everywhere that folks want them. So we have a problem in terms of the overall County policy, as it's been for a long time, and making exceptions to it. Even though this seems like a small amount of money on a road that there's clearly a case that you need the alleviation.
Blanton: Well who had the say so for them to come in and tear it up like they did?
Ruth Beard: Yes, why did they do that?
Beard: Yes, who tore that road up?
Stutsman: Well I think it was an agreement because of the potholes and it was an attempt to try and fix those, the potholes, that we were hearing a lot of...
Blanton: The potholes have been fixed, for goodness sake.
Bolkcom: We've been...
Stutsman: Well, it was a lot of complaints that we were getting about fixing the potholes.
Beard: And a fraction of what it would cost to tear it up and put rock on it.
Blanton: Yes spend the money and tear it up, but you can't spend the money to put some oil on it.
Beard: Just a few potholes could have been fixed and we'd have the blacktop road yet. No dust.
Stutsman: But then it would have cost...
Beard: But they tore it all up.
Stutsman: ...to maintain that blacktop road too, and I don't think there probably was any interest to continue that.
Beard: That would be peanuts. That would be peanuts to keep up the potholes on that blacktop compared to tearing it all up and gravel it. Then now, something has to be done about the dust.
Blanton: I would just like to have you people come out and see what we're putting, well you know. See what we're putting up with.
Beard: The cloud of dust that comes over there, all the time, because a lot of people travel that road.
Blanton: We can't be outside, we have a nice porch to sit on, we haven't been out there since you tore the road up.
Stutsman: Did you have a comment?
Charles Sedivec: The problem is when they did come out and fix the potholes, they never fixed them right in the first place. They would bring gravel down and fill the holes with gravel, well everybody knows that's not going to work.
Wayne Warmuth: At one time, they used the coal (inaudible) or whatever it is that they put it in the holes and afterwards it would stay for a while, but when they just started putting just gravel on there, it would just bounce out the next time people drove over it.
Ruth Beard: The next day, there were potholes again.
Wayne Warmuth: There were potholes again.
Beard: So the County has torn it up, and made a dusty road out of it, I still think it's the County's problem. I can't see why the County can't afford to fix it, and fix it right. When you consider all the taxes that come off of that park. Taxes on our homes, and I don't know what the park pays for taxes on that 40 acres. The ground that the park (inaudible) would be no small amount, I'm sure you could find out, but... That's...
Jordahl: Traffic.
Wayne Warmuth: I was going to say, these figures he's got, there's different sizes homes in there, he's going by one size of home, mine's different than his, somebody else's might be different, if they're double wide, mine's a smaller double wide, a little more than his, but there are some of them that are quite a bit more, mine's $150 a year, or $75 every six months for taxes, but I've heard some people in there say they're paying $200 a year. So...
Sedivec: Based on square footage.
Warmuth: Yes.
Jordahl: I'd like to.
Beard: The County gets a lot of taxes off, I don't know how much they get off of that 40 acres of ground that the park's on. We have our own wells, we're pretty independent, own wells, we get electricity from the REC, and we have our own sewer system.
Jordahl: I'd like to raise the question of traffic counts here in the context of our earlier discussion of road study. County wide. I wonder what a traffic count would show. I mean if we have, we talked earlier about a development where 56 houses were proposed and we were talking about an average daily traffic count increase for those 56 homes of 8 trips per day. I assume the same figure of 8 per day would be reasonable to use in talking about the situation here. I guess I'm wondering about the character of the road surface here, given that it's a dead end. I think that's clearly a factor in our assessment of what the road ought to be, but we will, I assume, as an outcome of the transportation study have some kind of a principal in place that would say when you have x number of trips per day, you need to go from a gravel surface to something else.
Stutsman: I think we already had that.
Jordahl: I wonder what the statistics are in this case?
Peters: I don't want to be an alarmist, but they weren't on the agenda as an agenda item.
Stutsman: Oh, OK.
Peters: Would you need to listen to their concerns and what have you, but I think any deliberation needs to be with, put on a date that's on the agenda so...
Stutsman: Thank you, Carol.
Peters: So that everybody from the mobile home Regency area will have the opportunity to come in and listen.
Lacina: One of the problems when I drove that down there, it is new rock, so I was doing 30 and watching the mirror and there was dust coming off of it, but again, it's brand new rock which with some rains, it's going to clean some of that dust off. We do hear the tax issue... Windsor Ridge came in and they have a mile of road on Taft which is rock road and they're in Iowa City, but the agreement was that if they were going to get dust alleviation, they had to put that on, have a friend over there, they're paying between 6 and 7 thousand dollars a year for their house, the taxes and he hit me with the same thing, I'm paying all these taxes and we told him well our policy is, it's a through road that if they were going to have that dust alleviation, they were going to have the contract. Normally, when the contract ends, we don't normally tear the road up, we leave it as long as we can until we get sufficient complaints, and I know there were a lot of complaints of the potholes and I drove that when they were down there as well and that's probably why it was reverted back to rock, it's because we were getting complaints about that. But again, as Joe has said too, we do have a policy that if the homeowner on a gravel road wants dust alleviation, they can get a section in front of their home done, they pay for it, and same way with housing developments. We have one development that paid $54,000, which went towards improvement of the road up there. There are lots of people with similar problems with asthma and dust problems and we have the contract which helps them get that dust alleviation up there. But again, part of the problem is it's new rock and that it's dusty rock.
Beard: Well, you'll still get some dust off of it. From here on out, because it's gravel, I know, I've lived on gravel roads a long time.
Lacina: I do too.
Bolkcom: Yes.
Stutsman: Well, I wonder if we do need to... put this on for next Tuesday and...
Duffy: We better.
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: ... make a decision.
Lacina: Probably need to wait because the Engineer I don't think will be here Tuesday.
Stutsman: Thursday. He'll be back Tuesday, he wasn't going to...
Bolkcom: Mike will be back Tuesday. He'll be back Monday, he said.
Jordahl: Monday.
Peters: He'll be back on Monday.
Stutsman: Tuesday.
Peters: Next Monday, he'll come back so he can...
Beard: Do we need to come in?
Stutsman: It's up to you.
Jordahl: I would suggest that you do.
Duffy: It's better if you're on the agenda.
Stutsman: It's up to you whether you want to come in.
Beard: We'll come.
Bolkcom: Do we need to wait until next week, can we put this on for Thursday? It doesn't sound like we're going to do anything on this, and if they're going to get dust alleviation, before summer gets on here, they need to know that and get going on it.
Jordahl: Well if...
Stutsman: Well it's already too late for that, can they still get it, if they chose to do that, can they still get it?
Bolkcom: I don't know the answer to that.
Lacina: I think the Engineer could help go get a contract with the applicator as long as he's in the area. Normally for individuals to apply, I think that time period is over.
Stutsman: We need Mike here, for the discussion on Thursday I guess is...
Bolkcom: Well we could ask him probably today, we'd probably get the background on it.
Jordahl: I would suggest that we do. I want to just place this in a general numerical framework here. As I recall, the standard for gravel road going to seal coat was 200 trips per day that we wanted it to be seal coat? Not a policy, but a general guideline, we're talking about 200 cars per day.
Bolkcom: Where does calcium chloride come in that situation?
Jordahl: Yes, where does calcium chloride come fit in?
Bolkcom: Is it 100 cars per day?
Jordahl: I don't know. I guess that's what a transportation study is going to show us, but in that framework, if we're talking about 8 trips per day, for 220 homes, that's 1,760 trips per day. That's, cut that in half, say half of them go out the north entrance, and the other half go out the south, that's still very nearly 800 trips per day which is well in excess of what we expect on a gravel road. So I'm wondering what impact a traffic count on Freund Road would have on this question.
Duffy: Well we can get a traffic count.
Bolkcom: We could easily do that.
Stutsman: Well should we put this on for Tuesday, then? When Mike will be back and then he can give us background information on that.
Ruth Beard: You mean we have to breath dust for another week?
Beard: What time Tuesday?
Stutsman: Probably 9:00.
Beard: Beg your pardon?
Stutsman: About 9:00 I think, that's when we start our meeting, so we could probably have it first thing on the agenda, is that OK?
Beard: Yes, next Tuesday.
Duffy: It looked to me before that road was certified, as you drove in there, headed south, there was some seal coat left there, but then as you headed west, and these ladies were saying about speed, I'll bet they do gun it by there straight south.
Beard: Well, yes, a lot of them do...
Stutsman: You bet, I drive by that every morning and the number of people that pull out in front of me, I'd like to...
Blanton: A lot of them don't even stop at the stop sign, they just go right around the corner.
Stutsman: They don't. OK, so 9:00 we'll put this on for next Tuesday.
Beard: OK.
Stutsman: OK.
Beard: Thank you.
Stutsman: So we will adjourn.
Recessed at 11:36 a.m.; reconvened on June 26, 1997 at 9:34 a.m.