Recessed at 11:36 a.m.; reconvened on June 26, 1997 at 9:34 a.m.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: RECREATIONAL GRANT FOR DUBUQUE STREET TRAIL
Stutsman: Talk first of all about the recreational trail grant for Dubuque Street Trail.
Bolkcom: Yes, there were a couple of questions that... this was talked about Tuesday and there were a couple of questions that came up, and let me see if I can answer those. One was when would the money need to be spent by? It's indefinite what the proposal that we're talking about right now is in 1999 basically, spending the money if we're successful grant applicant, doing the planning for the trail. The trail itself, so people know what it consists of now, a sidewalk that runs along North Dubuque Street from roughly Butler Bridge to West Overlook Road and basically upgrading that into a bona fide recreational trail. It's been a project that we've previously submitted, regionally for federal ISTEA funding to upgrade that facility. We've been unsuccessful in doing that, the State of Iowa Department of Transportation has $1 million available for a July 1st deadline. So, the question of when does the money, we can say whenever we want and talking to Mike he suggested we visit about it saying that we would spend the money by September of 1999, do the project a year, I guess, 2 years from now. Do the planning for it and design for it next year. The total cost of the project, Mike presented the figures we took from a former ISTEA proposal is $337,000. The grant program is for a 25% match which would put us in the local share would be about $84,250 from local resources and we'd be asking for a grant of $252,750. John Yapp provided some assistance in pulling together materials as well as Mike Gardner and myself and we have an application that is essentially ready if the Board chooses to submit it. The friends of the Iowa River Scenic Trail are also willing to provide a letter of support to the application.
Jordahl: Very impressive work, Joe. Is this 2 days you pull this together?
Bolkcom: It's a 2 page proposal. I had a lot of help from Mike Gardner and John Yapp actually.
Jordahl: I'm in awe, I don't know if I could sit there in 2 days and do that myself. Congratulations.
Duffy: This was proposal...
Bolkcom: We haven't sent it in yet.
Duffy: This was proposal to the ISTEA Committee I believe?
Bolkcom: Right. We formally submitted it a couple of different times, it got awarded one time but because our estimate was so low the Board decided to pull the application, we resubmitted it in a competitive environment last time with 11 other proposals and it did not get funded. 2 of our other proposals did but this one did not.
Duffy: ISTEA is Federal gas tax funding by the way. I don't know, $84,250 is a pretty good piece of change and I would say in the future there'd be grants to this, of course this is off the State gas tax but I might have a little problem with that because we do have problems on our County roads and we have a couple that already have been approved. Prairie Du Chien and then on the West Overlook.
Stutsman: Mike said there was money in the budget for the match?
Bolkcom: Mike felt that he would be able to do this as (inaudible). That's right.
Stutsman: Without jeopardizing or pushing back any other projects or?
Bolkcom: He basically, I asked him that yesterday before he left and he said if the Board is interested in doing this project, we can make this project happen.
Lacina: But Tuesday when he was in, he did state that he has a fairly aggressive construction project which will consume a lot of money and it appears with the loss of the timber grant, we had 4 bridges which were going to be reconstructed that now we've lost that Federal money and those bridges still need attention, that somehow they're going to have to come off of our local tax base or farm to market money. I have not been able to get a hold of Kelly Hayworth, Coralville is in competition with us, they are putting in an application for funds for a bike trail and I guess my opinion is that we should support them in their attempt to get this money. We're going for the 3rd of the pool from the State and I don't know that ours really will have merit to get funded. I would rather see us collaborate with Coralville, learn a little bit more about their project and see if we couldn't support that. $84,000 to come out of a budget in 2 days tells me that we're sacrificing something else. We don't have that kind of cushion normally sitting around in these budgets so again from what Mike said Tuesday he's got an aggressive construction budget. We still haven't dealt with what we're going to do with $125,000 for the bridges, not saying that I don't support the idea but I'm saying right now with the time with the information I have, I feel uneasy about it.
Stutsman: But you said it was going to be in the Fiscal Year 99?
Bolkcom: It'd be 2 years from now that we'd actually do it.
Stutsman: So we're not looking at next year's budget and some adjustments can be made?
Bolkcom: Sure.
Lacina: That is Fiscal Year 99 not calendar year 99?
Bolkcom: Calendar year 99.
Lacina: Calendar year.
Stutsman: Oh, OK.
Bolkcom: So it'd be 2 years from now. In terms of Coralville, maybe I can throw this in.
Jordahl: Go ahead.
Bolkcom: They are working on a project around, a trail that would be around Auburn Hills neighborhood connecting the Kate Wickham School. It isn't clear whether they are actually going to proceed with this application at this time.
Stutsman: With this particular application?
Bolkcom: Right.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: I was talking with John Yapp from the City who had been in touch with Coralville about it but that was their general idea for a proposal and he was, it wasn't clear whether they were actually going to have it together to submit for July 1st so they, we can find out, but they may not be submitting. At any rate, even with them submitting, I think looking at W66, North Dubuque Street, it's got a traffic count of over 5,000 cars a day, it's very substantial access point in and out of town and it has a vast amount of people that live in those neighborhoods that currently use the facility there and I think it would be, not only would it be a good neighborhood improvement, it would add to what is the Iowa City River Scenic Trail Project and it's part of a regional project that would connect the reservoir and all Iowa City and Coralville's, all the systems basically, that's why I think it's a significant project and will be a significant project for the State because not only it's local but it has pretty significant regional importance.
Jordahl: 2 questions rise in my mind, I'm glad Joe's spoken in such a positive aim about the project and how it enhances the Regional Trail Network. Steve mentioned the bridge grant being lost, I'm not sure, is that a known situation that we've lost the bridge grant or is that sort of something that's still under discussion? It's my impression that that could still go forward if we chose.
Stutsman: I don't think we've made a formal decision, I think Mike was checking into some things about that.
Jordahl: Yes, so that $245,000 whatever it is...
Bolkcom: $125,000.
Jordahl: That money is not, $125,000 is not at this point lost and I don't want to scare people about that. As far as the money in the Secondary Roads budget, we sat down just a couple months ago and directed the then Engineer to find ways of spending down budget surplus of nearly, what, $900,000 I think it was? I think we do have $84,000 in the Secondary Roads budget, the question is does this County have it as a priority to develop a trail network or not? I think if we can improve this obviously very heavily trafficked trail, with the leverage of a grant which would pay for what 2/3rds of it, 3/4ths of it?
Bolkcom: 3/4ths.
Jordahl: 3/4ths of it would be paid by State money is, I think we ought to respect Mr. Bolkcom's work and send this grant application forward.
Lacina: Well, time will tell us as far as what we're going to do with the timber grant application and from what I have been able to learn, my feeling is that that's not a for sure thing. As far as the reserves that we have, those of us who have been on the Board awhile realize that if you get into an ice storm in the wintertime or that in between your tax collection periods in the summer when the majority of your construction takes place, that is really where you can see a huge need for the cash and you need those reserves, it's like your checkbook, if you're going month to month you can't do that to Secondary Roads when during 3 months of the year all of our construction takes place. To me, $322,000 for a bike trail, if it were reconstruction of the road as we're going to do with Sand Road and the discussion of placing an additional width at that time for a bike trail, it would be a little different but this has been thrown together in 2 days. Again, I don't feel comfortable at this time committing $84,000 out of our budget for this. Again I do think it competing against Coralville and at this time I just simply can't support it.
Duffy: Now Sally.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Duffy: I think we shouldn't give the taxpayers the impression that we're loaded with money, (inaudible) budget or the County (inaudible) budget because 1993 was a lost year. We're running behind on our projects simply because it rained and all the problems that we had, operation of the Coralville Dam so that was a lost year plus there were some problems out of the County road department and keep in mind Mike did say that every 2 years that our bridges are inspected and most of the time it's by the Feds and when they say to close a bridge like they did one year, they said to close 5 and they were closed the next day and the farmers had to go miles and miles around. I remember the time when they said Greencastle Bridge over the Iowa River, close it right now, and we never did and I'm sure, and we don't have the funds to do it. That bridge should be over the Iowa River because farmers and other folks have to drive around 19 miles and go, if they're going from west to east, use 965 that has a lot of traffic on it to get to the other side of the river. But to say we have all this money I certainly don't agree with it. I like trails as well as anybody else but we have supported 2 and that takes extra funding and so I'm not comfortable right now to approve this and I think there will be a chance in the future to resubmit it to the ISTEA funding.
Lacina: Just a question, what was the road down south down here, the truck went over the bridge, put the bridge down, was it 35 or $35,000 that we couldn't find?
Bolkcom: Kansas.
Lacina: Kansas Avenue Bridge. At that time (inaudible).
Bolkcom: We (inaudible).
Stutsman: I thought we redid that bridge though. Rebuilt it for (inaudible).
Bolkcom: Yes, we redid that bridge with some insurance money actually.
Lacina: It took us a long time to find that 35.
Stutsman: Well, we didn't find 35, it was a decision to replace that bridge or to completely replace it with a new structure or to rebuild it and the decision was made to take the insurance company plus some additional funds.
Lacina: And rebuild it.
Stutsman: A small amount of additional funds to rebuild that bridge.
Lacina: Right.
Stutsman: It's passable, it's certainly not a new structure but I think it's certainly kept the road open.
Jordahl: I'd like to address a couple of questions. Greencastle Avenue, I think I'd like to put that on the agenda for discussion, Charlie if you want to talk about that, I have some feeling about that too.
Duffy: I'm saying that it cost a lot of money to do it.
Jordahl: Yes.
Duffy: I'm just saying that sometimes that Feds or even the State will say close these bridges and that's it and we have patched some of them up. I know one southeast, Bob Eden's bridge and here he is land with both sides there and he had to go miles around, that was closed quite awhile until they came up with some steel beams that were taken off a larger bridge and wood plank and finally got a bridge that passed inspection but it could happen but as far as having a windfall again, I repeat myself, the County road department, I don't see it that way. There's too many things that need to be done.
Jordahl: I think that point is exactly one that needs addressing. My general point response to Greencastle is that this is a discussion really that should take place in the context of the 5 year construction plan and Secondary Roads and seeing things in an overall context rather than looking at each individual situation and saying this person was inconvenienced. I'm sure people are inconvenienced when bridges are closed or down for one reason or another. The general point that's relevant here and I think it's important that we not scare the taxpayers about this that we have had an extensive discussion about this issue between the then Engineer and the Auditor, we came in and had a long conversation about what carryover was necessary. Steve to your point of the construction season and when our funds are expended and so forth, the Auditor had that calculated out for a number of previous years and projections into the future indicating that in the worst year we've ever had in terms of our construction needs, which was not the flood year of '93, we've had more than sufficient funds for carryover to handle any cash flow situations that we needed and that this year we were looking at having as something in the neighborhood of $900,000 in excess of that maximum carryover that has ever been needed and that's why we looked at some other projects to do, which included a number of bridges. So, I think that people should be secure that we are working fairly well in Secondary Roads and that we are taking care of our situations.
Lacina: Agreed but as Charlie stated, Jonathan, we had 6 to 7 major projects that were not completed in that one fiscal year that those dollars were not spent that went into the reserves. We've told the Engineer to try to catch up on those construction projects which he has not been able to do because of shortage of engineers and time commitments and other factors that have hit Secondary Roads, because they do have a lot of work to do. If you have 6 or 7 major projects you don't complete you're going to have reserves, it doesn't mean that that work doesn't need to be done which he's now trying to do. So, we have set up a working policy where those dollars will be spent down.
Jordahl: Uh-huh. I didn't say the projects didn't need to be done, I agree, and again, going back to the discussion of the 5 year construction plan, we looked at the question of what needed to be done, prioritized it and are asking the Engineer to proceed accordingly. I don't see any disagreement there.
Stutsman: I'm ready to support applying for this grant. This is a grant that we're applying for, there's no guarantees we're going to get this money, I think because it's... We can use the money for Fiscal Year 98, I think there's some room to look at the budget and make sure that the moneys are there and if I hear from the County Engineer that there is moneys there, that without causing a great impact on other projects, I'm ready to go ahead and at least apply for the grant. We don't know the status of Coralville and I don't think that they would see us as being in competition with them. I think if they had come to us and said look, we're applying for this grant we don't want to be in competition with each other what are their plans, it might be a different slant on it but I think that the moneys, a grant opportunity's available, I think we should take advantage of it and just see what happens. Any other comments or discussion? OK, we'll vote on that during formal meeting.
DISCUSSION: TREES ALONG 140TH STREET
Stutsman: Discussion regarding trees along 140th Street. Are you Nancy?
Attorney Kandie Briscoe: I'm Kandie.
Stutsman: Kandie?
Briscoe: Briscoe.
Stutsman: Briscoe, OK, I'm sorry.
Briscoe: I would like to address the Board if I can.
Stutsman: OK, that'd be fine. Candy Briscoe is attorney representing...
Briscoe: I'm an attorney with Barker, Cruise, Kennedy and I represent Kathy and Mike Erenberger who live along, I'm sure you're familiar with them, they live along 140th Street and you're using an easement to put in the road along their property. As I was thinking about this this morning, it sort of occurred to me that this is really a big misunderstanding at the basis of this whole thing. As background, the easement that the County is claiming resulted from a farmstead split, done by the seller when the Erenbergers were purchasing the property and it was approved by a County resolution in January of 1990 and the Erenbergers were aware that the County was demanding an easement but the Erenbergers expectation was always that they would be given a chance to discuss this with the County when the easement was actually taken. I believe you've received a letter from Kathy, yes, that has attached to it a copy of the memo that was executed by their sellers at the time, as a part of the subdivision documents. I'm sure you've seen quite a few easements, this is not typically what an easement looks like, if you, and just as a lay person looking... You don't have to be an attorney to read this thing and a lay person would expect this that there was going to be a grant, a future grant. The language in here doesn't actually grant an easement, it says we agree to grant one later, a maximum, it doesn't actually specify the exact area. The document's not even acknowledged as typically any document effecting a real estate interest should be. For those reasons, the County always assumed that they had an easement that they could enforce but on the other side the Erenbergers, and I think justifiably, believed that there was going to be some future time when they would actually be granting this and setting the boundaries of this easement. Along those lines, and I also have copies of the final plat for the Reinhardt Subdivision and I'd be glad to distribute these but you'll notice that the easement is marked on here but the easement to be granted, and just supports their belief that this was to be something that was going to occur in the future and sounds like they would have an opportunity to discuss with the Board. One thing I did want to bring to your attention that occurred just recently, yesterday in fact, in a casual discussion between Mike Erenberger and the County Engineer Mike Gardner, they realized that the easement as it was currently marked was actually measured 50 feet from the center of the proposed new road and if you look at this memo, even if this is a valid easement, it says that the maximum is 50 feet from the center of the current road. After being informed of this, Mike Gardner sent out some employees from the County Engineer's Office and they did go and move the stakes or marking the edge of the easement area and they did move the easement boundary approximately 3 feet closer to the trees that are at issue in this. I think you're aware that there is a row of 10 trees that are along the Erenberger property, 9 of which are cedar trees and one is a very mature silver maple tree that's just beautiful. As the boundary is now marked, it's only 2 feet from the edge of the trees approximately, Kathy measured it last night, and it would only take 4 feet possibly to save these trees. I could waste my time telling you what a benefit trees are, I'm sure you know, they're beautiful, they're environmental, I mean I can go through all of that stuff. I know it's my understanding that you're talking about some type of a policy regarding trees and easements, but I'm not really talking about a general policy today, I'm talking a specific situation where, in my legal opinion, there is not a valid easement. It hasn't been granted yet. There was an intention to grant one and the Erenbergers will grant an easement, but they want a reasonable easement and an opportunity at least to find out if the trees or some of the trees can be saved. Our purpose in bringing this to the Board's attention is not to cause delay or excessive cost, unjustified cost in trying to save the trees, to the contrary we brought this to the attention of the Board to do just that, at this early stage to prevent later delays and excessive cost. If this matter, if you just consider the possibility of redesigning the roads so that some or all of the trees could be saved at this time, it could be done in conjunction with the revisions that are going to have to be made because of the 3 foot error that was just adjusted yesterday. I talked to Mike and he said it was not a priority right at yesterday to redesign the road based on that 3 foot adjustment that they made but it would have to be changed. If the trees, if you won't even give us the consideration of trying to see if there's anything possibly that could be done, and we're not talking about a huge adjustment or something great at great expense, I'm talking about 4 feet. If we can't get that consideration, you really leave the Erenbergers no option other than to resort to the courts for a remedy. I feel very strongly that, in my legal opinion, you don't have a valid easement. They do not want to go to court, they do not want to make a big mess out of this, they don't want to delay the County, it would be expensive for them too and I think it's very very likely that we could get a preliminary injunction holding this up and we don't want to do that. As an alternative for you today, we're just asking for some consideration. Maybe it's not possible to save those trees, but we would like to just have the possibility investigated.
Stutsman: Now I did talk to Mike late yesterday afternoon and he did say that they sent a survey crew out and they did make a 2 or 3 foot adjustment and it was my understanding that those trees are still in the right-of-way.
Briscoe: They are.
Stutsman: Even with that adjustment.
Briscoe: They are 2 feet within, the boundary easement now is 2 feet from the edge of the trees.
Stutsman: So, I guess I'm confused as to what other adjustments can be made if we've already made this adjustment? The next step would be a complete redesign of the road is that what?
Briscoe: I don't know, I'm not an engineer.
Stutsman: I don't know either.
Jordahl: I might be able to shed a little light on this, by this I mean a little, kind of like a half light. What Mike did in the case of the Fullers was to raise the ditch and so that shortened the amount clear zone required and so that kind of a redesign rather than swerving the road side to side was to raise it and there's a formula of goes from what they call the tow of the ditch, which is the end of the foreslope going down into the ditch, and if they could raise the ditch and that tow comes in closer to the road and then the clear zone correspondingly comes in with it. So, the redesign might include something like that.
Briscoe: It's my understanding that the Fullers' trees are quite a bit closer to the road to these trees like I mentioned are quite a ways out. They're on the edge of the clear zone, they're only 2 feet in from the boundary so I wouldn't think it'd take a whole lot to adjust. There's obviously, there is a costs savings by not taking down the trees. There is some cost savings to the City, or excuse me, the County because you would have to pay to have those trees and they're big trees, to have them removed and have the stumps taken out and that kind of a thing so I would think there would be some costs savings that would help offset any additional costs that there might be.
Stutsman: Janet, oh I'm sorry Joe.
Bolkcom: Sally, did you get the impression from Mike they sent a survey crew out yesterday just to move the pins or the stakes or whatever.
Stutsman: Right, to see what adjustments could be made.
Bolkcom: OK. So, will they have to sit down again and make some engineer, it sounds like they may have to sit down back at the computer again and reconfigure the lines.
Stutsman: Right.
Bolkcom: That's...
Stutsman: I think we are talking about a redesign (inaudible) thing.
Bolkcom: OK.
Stutsman: I think my understanding is they've made as many adjustments they can without having to go the next step further which is redesign.
Bolkcom: But Mike...
Stutsman: Unfortunately Mike is out of town and that's why he's not here this morning.
Briscoe: Right.
Stutsman: He had previous plans and so that's why he's not here to speak specifically to these issues. Janet, I wanted to ask you about your opinion about the easement. I sent those materials over to you.
Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: I think there's a real question about whether there is an easement but I think it's going to have to be looked into. I think that there's a very good point made that this doesn't necessarily constitute an easement and so I do agree that this definitely needs to be looked at more (inaudible) if there even is an easement currently.
Duffy: Yes, Sally? Does this mean then this is going to be set back a year?
Stutsman: There's another question I think for the County Engineer.
Lacina: (Inaudible).
Bolkcom: We need to ask Mike that. I didn't get that sense when we talked.
Duffy: I kind of did. Now trees, I like trees and the way I farm out there, for years and years, organic farmer, I counted trees and one of my fence lines, fairly new trees there were 50 of them. I like trees but to really to stop a project like this, they are a renewable resource and as far as the property won't be worth as much for these trees. I have a real problem with that when a paved highway goes by your place, it looks like it would enhance the property rights. Plus, there's other people out there, the Millers for example, they're the ones that really gave up a lot, they gave up some farmland and but as far as doing the whole thing over and everything, this is Farm America funding. They're going to pay 100% for that road, not the easements but... And that's what it's for and I did say, and I checked with some other engineers in other counties they usually have a width of 150 feet minimum, I guess ours 120, but as far as holding this project up, I'm not for that. It's too bad Mike isn't here, but that's what I thought he said.
Stutsman: Rick had your hand up, I didn't know if you had some comments?
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: If you could only set (inaudible) I haven't been involved (inaudible) very well either. But it's my understanding from getting some information from Anne who also did review this that if in fact the document itself may not be correct. The spirit of the document was to do with the County, the easement, the plat indicates that there's to be an easement to the County. So, it's my understanding that possibly, if it's determined that that easement is not a legal binding document then the plat is not a legal document. There may be a situation that the Erenbergers may have to come back and re-plat the one (inaudible) 3 months, I think. Is that kind of what Anne...
Briscoe: Anne has discussed that with me and she mentioned the fact that if I want, if I do go forward with the legal challenge to the easement that the County could force the Erenbergers to re-subdivide and basically, I guess the big question is are you going to push the Erenbergers to make that decision or not? I'm not necessarily saying that we need a huge delay or that the whole road's got to be redesigned, but our plea at this point, I guess, is just would you please consider it or investigate or ask Mike to look into it? So we can see, I don't think we can make a decision or that you as the Board can make an informed decision without finding out what it is, how much sacrificing we are asking you to make.
Jordahl: Let me ask of this, I think they are 2 separable questions here. One here is whether the easement is valid and the other is where is the easement? You already talked about moving the pins in the middle of the road, we have 4 feet moved there, and that fact itself, even if this easement were considered legal and binding as it sits.
Briscoe: Right.
Jordahl: The easement goes to the middle of the current road, not to the middle of the new redesigned road.
Briscoe: Exactly. Even if we concede that this thing, memo, is an easement, then the 3 foot adjustment that was made yesterday had to be made to comply with this.
Jordahl: Right.
Briscoe: That itself may require some redesign of the road, I would assume. That's a fairly substantial move.
Jordahl: Yes, if the center of the road, rather than just the easement, if the road's center as to be designed is effected, then it would seem to me that the road is going to have to be redesigned anyway and if the road is being redesigned at that, not the whole road now Charlie, I'm not talking about a delay of a year, I don't want to see that either OK? But if there's a redesign process going to occur where the engineers are going to be looking that moving the road over 4 feet, then there's going to be all kinds of right-of-way questions along the sides of it, then in that process of redesign it would seem reasonable to ask that some adjustments be made to try and make the clear zone come within these trees.
Briscoe: That was exactly my point. If we could do it at this time, it would save time and money rather than cost more...
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Briscoe: ... fighting about this.
Jordahl: What I see as another possibility though is that the road may not be, that the center of the new road may not be moved corresponding to the measurement of the easement.
Briscoe: That's quite possible.
Jordahl: In other words, the easement might be smaller, the right-of-way purchased might be smaller in front of the house but the road not be moved and if the road's not moved, if the center line of the new road stays where it's been designed to be, then no redesign process is taking place other than adjusting the right-of-way line, then it seems more problematic as to whether the trees would be savable because the road, the clear zone line would probably be outside those trees.
Briscoe: I'm not...
Stutsman: It seems...
Briscoe: I'm...
Stutsman: Excuse me, I was going to say, it seems like there's a number of questions that have come up this morning that I think need to be answered by Mike and I guess I would suggest that we almost discuss this again on Tuesday when Mike will be here.
Briscoe: That would be fine. I'm not asking for a commitment today or a decision.
Stutsman: OK.
Briscoe: Just that it be investigated.
Stutsman: So that we all...
Briscoe: Some questions be asked and answered.
Duffy: Yes, there's one other thing though, the Fullers have lost a lot of trees.
Briscoe: The Fullers have lost...
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Duffy: So we save the Fullers' trees and not yours, is wrong.
Briscoe: I'm arguing only for the Erenbergers.
Duffy: Yes, OK.
Briscoe: I haven't been involved in it at all, the negotiations you've had with the Fullers.
Stutsman: Does the Board feel the same as I do that we need to take this up again on Tuesday when Mike's back?
Bolkcom: I would agree.
Duffy: So we don't slow it up for a year, Sally we're getting awful close to a deadline.
Stutsman: I agree too Charlie, I think we need to make a decision but I think I need the County Engineer here too to answer some questions and things.
Lacina: Just 2 points. In the past we've not required easements on the plats, we've required a cloud so that everyone's aware that construction takes place that has to be outside the setbacks and that of this potential area so that if we ever need that road, that we could get that easement. We've not forced easements on people that we may or may not need, it's just been as a safety valve and so the 2nd point from advice from the County Attorney in the past, whenever we have been privy that we may be involved in legal action, we have been advised not to comment and to do so through the County Attorney and I think it appears to me at this time that while the Engineer needs to be a major player in this, that Pat, with his history, may want to be involved as well in the event that we're in the court, we need to be very clear of what's stated, opinion versus fact and history and those things. So, when we put this on for discussion I think, and no disrespect or anything but Pat has a history of where we've come with this up to the '80s.
Lyness: I discussed this with Pat yesterday so...
Lacina: But again, I think it would be wise for him to be here.
Stutsman: Do we need to check with his calendar to see if he's going to be available Tuesday?
Peters: If you want him here Tuesday yes we do.
Stutsman: Yes, OK. We'll let you know whether we can get Pat and Mike. Mike I understand will be back Monday.
Briscoe: OK. Appreciate that.
Stutsman: OK.
Briscoe: Thank you.
Stutsman: We'll be in touch. Thank you.
Bolkcom: Well, the other property owners, the Klines, we did receive a letter from them as well and I suppose we could save this for next Tuesday as well?
Stutsman: If we can arrange everybody's schedule.
Bolkcom: OK.
Stutsman: OK. We will recess informal meeting and go back to formal meeting.
Recessed to formal meeting of July 26,1997 at 10:05 a.m.; reconvened at 10:57 a.m.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LINN/JOHNSON COUNTY LEGAL SETTLEMENT CASE
Stutsman: Regarding Supreme Court decisions on Linn/Johnson County legal settlement case. Janet, do you have information on them?
Lyness: Yes. In the case of the State of Iowa, blah blah blah, versus Linn County and versus Johnson County we had gone to the Supreme Court to appeal a District Court decision, that basically said that Johnson County was the legal settlement for a women who's been in a Systems home here for some time and we were disputing saying that Linn County should have to pay for it. Basically what the Supreme Court came up with and decided was you look for legal settlement and where her guardian is, and her guardian is a Johnson County resident so we are still required to pay for the treatment, et ceteras, that she's getting living at Systems. We're going to be looking at it further to see if we want to ask them to do anything further, but that's the decision for right now. It was a 5-0 decision by the Supreme Court.
Stutsman: OK. Well, we pursued it as far as we could.
Lacina: Unfortunately the law was rather specific in stating when a child becomes an adult, the residency is established by the care giver and in this situation it was a Linn County life long resident that was down here for services and a loophole in the law, did it on her 18th birthday, she became ours for the rest of her life.
Lyness: Once she had a guardian appointed who was a Johnson County resident.
Stutsman: That will be retroactive, the amount that we will pay?
Lyness: Right, because I believe as we challenged it, because of the District Court ruling went back to the time, I believe when she turned 18 because Linn County was basically saying we should have paid when they had paid for some period of time. So, I believe it was from 1993, November 15th of 1993 when she reached the age of majority.
Stutsman: Has Craig Mosher been appraised of that decision? I'm sure he probably has but...
Lyness: I talked to him this week and I can't remember if we discussed this specifically but I'll be talking to him about it. I had talked to him last week about it before the decision had come down so I don't think he's going to be surprised with the decision.
Stutsman: Probably not.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: OK. Any other comments?
Lyness: Something you should have all, this should have been passed around.
Stutsman: Right.
Bolkcom: We saw it.
Stutsman: We did receive a copy of that.
REPORT (REVEREND BOB WELSH): COMMENT ON SUPREME COURT CASE
Stutsman: OK. Inquiries and reports from the public?
Reverend Bob Welsh: Just one comment. That legal decision will have some effect on Johnson County's ability. (Inaudible) you have an open door policy, when you assume liability then that person becomes 18 that's something I think that's going to have to looked at. (Inaudible).
Bolkcom: That's a good question. Maybe we should have Craig come in and visit with us about what he sees the implications being from this.
Lacina: But think how fortunate it is for the consumer who suddenly the decision on who is to give proper care may be dependent upon a county's ability to pay and the finances. The objective of taking care of the public and some of the legislation that's in place sometimes aren't consistent and that's unfortunate.
Welsh: That's true.
REPORT (DUFFY): SENIOR CENTER VISIT
Stutsman: OK. Reports and inquiries from the Board of Supervisors. Charlie, do you have anything?
Duffy: Here's one thing I hadn't reported on in the past. I spend quite a bit of time up at the Senior Center and personally I think that's the best senior center in the whole state of Iowa, regardless of what some of these statistics that I've been reading in the paper say, and maybe across the United States. There are some very talented people that, for example, there's a senior art show. If you haven't been up to the senior center then you probably wouldn't know what I'm talking about but the ones that go up there, there are pictures that where we have senior dining on the walls are painted pictures, some with watercolors some with a paint, and they're just great and some of them are for sale and it's been going on from June 13th to July 18th will be the deadline. There's a list of the ones that are for sale and they're just great pictures and it's just one thing that in the past I hadn't reported on before so... They'll tell you how much these pictures cost, the ones that are selling them, and they look like they're very reasonable to me because there's some great artists in that group.
Stutsman: Steve?
REPORT (LACINA): ATTENDED 6TH DISTRICT JUDICIAL MEETING
Lacina: I had this 6th judicial meeting yesterday and it does appear that 6th district could be losing a couple hundred thousand dollars in community correction money. Some legislation was passed which is get tough on crime so that if a parolee is caught with a minor violations of alcohol or other violations they basically lose their parole. Question is, can people really be perfect, so to speak, there needs to be recourse if they commit a crime or something, but should it be so severe that they lose their parole? In some cases, possibly yes but it will cost us possibly a couple hundred thousand dollars in moneys deferred away from our programs and rehabilitation to this get tough and possibly put a lot more people in prison that shouldn't necessarily be locked up for a small infraction. Also, I just got the letter from Hills, I'm assuming that everybody else saw it on the Hills $250 for the housing.
Stutsman: Uh-huh. They approved it.
Jordahl: Yes.
Bolkcom: Great.
Lacina: So, that's all I have.
Stutsman: OK.
Jordahl: Steve? Can I ask, you may not know the details of this but do you know which, but are there specific programs in the 6th judicial district that will be effected, the moneys, is this $100,000 coming out of a specific program or is it kind of widespread across the whole thing?
Lacina: The question is going to be whether or not, what the total impact will be. We are charged parolees for room and board and for some of the training that they receive, so there are a number of questions which aren't answered. Number one, what will the effect be of the grants but also what will the revenue loss be by individuals that may or may not be assigned to us. So, Gary was in the process of trying to get clarification on the full impact and also the State's interpretation of the law. A lot is dependent upon on how they interpret this (inaudible).
Jordahl: Yes.
Lacina: But so far the word is that we're not going to receive a financial hit.
Jordahl: Complicated stuff. Thank you.
Stutsman: Jonathan?
Jordahl: Yes, let me first hasten to respect Bob Welsh's presence here by pointing to our upcoming, I was talking earlier about the activities of the Social Welfare Board, I don't know if the camera can see this. We have an upcoming forum on welfare reform, this is part of an ongoing effort by the Social Welfare Board to get public discussion of the impacts of changes in the welfare system that we're facing, clock ticking, 60 months of eligibility for people, a very real question of what it implies for Johnson County's social welfare system. So, there's an opportunity July 2nd, 7:00, that's a Wednesday coming up and we want to invite everybody to come to the Iowa City Public Library, Room A, 7:00, July 2nd, meeting will include it says here, a chance for you to express concerns and suggestions about welfare reform in Johnson County, information about steps now being taken to make welfare reform work in Johnson County. A 3rd point that came up in one of our meetings where we had a lot of input from, well we had 8 or 9 different consumers that were present at the time, information about the Iowa Child Welfare Law, policies and procedures that could result in a child being removed from the home, not people that policy also needs to be seen from a couple different perspectives, it's protection of children and there's also concerns on the part of consumers as to how the process works in their individual instances. Other items, Networking Committee met on Tuesday and we met up at the Department of Human Services Office, looking into electronic mail for the County. We do have e-mail inside this building now for people to speak with one another but we don't have it between buildings so that it would be part of the establishing the network. Particularly we run up the DHS to look at their program, they use Microsoft Exchange, which is part of the Office 97 package which the County is now buying on an ongoing basis for offices as they upgrade to more powerful machines that can operate it. So, it seems like a fairly logical choice, given that the State is operating on that system and we can have some interaction with DHS, using it would be a nice match. There are wonderful ways in which that program allows you to, I don't know if anybody's familiar with e-mail, there's a tendency when you get an e-mail message and you try to manipulate that so you get text there and you want to change it, you have to transfer it over to a software program in order to deal with it. This program, being that it's meshed in a Microsoft product, automatically will let you bring the e-mail message up into word processing so you don't have to go take all these drag and drop extra steps and so it's very easy to use and it would really facilitate communications. Another aspect of it is that you can find mailing groups, mailing lists, that will save a lot of this paper floating around, you can send people announcements about things that are on a distribution list and they would get it electronically, could view it electronically if they wanted to print up a copy to post, fine, it'd be there but I think it would really help also scheduling is a possibility. If you'd like to schedule a meeting you could look at other people's schedules and try to correlate so it's a wonderful asset. I hope we'll be moving forward but we want to look again next week, so if anybody's interested, July 1st, 2:30 in this room, we'll be going off another meeting to discuss other options. Strategic Planing Monday, we're going to be doing, and I'm very pleased we're talking about how we operate as a Board.
Stutsman: Joe?
Bolkcom: Good report. Busy week. I feel like we've all been dragged and dropped a little bit this week. We met on Tuesday, Sally and I met with some of the folks from the court system and the County Attorney's Office talking about the space needs at the courthouse, I suppose that's an item we need put on maybe next week. Just kind of update the Board on that. Also had a Decat meeting this week, we are submitting another plan for how we approach Decat funding and the needs of families and children in the County. MH/DD Committee met this week as well, this is all Tuesday I guess, to continue to work, we appointed our work group which will continue to work on managed care plan for next year. Also attended last night a meeting out in Swisher, we talked about it earlier with Rick, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. People are very concerned about the road system out there in addition to all the other issues that were talked about and I guess I bring that back to the Board, it was a consistent thing that came up and people are feeling like we are maybe not paying enough attention to what's going on out there so that might be a topic we'll continue to hear about. Finally, the Conservation Board as we talked on Tuesday is interested in having the Board come out. I talked with folks out there and they meet July 16th for their regular meeting at 5:30 out at Kent Park (inaudible) 5:00 or 4:30 to spend an hour maybe to look at the sight for the environmental ed center as well as look at the plans. So, how does that look for people? The 16th? Wednesday the 16th of July? We could conceivably do it at 5:30 too and they just accommodate us?
Duffy: The 17th we're going to have a real long day by the way it looks and we're going to discuss the Comprehensive Plan in the evening so, I think the 16th of that would kind of be a poor time for me to get ready for that Comprehensive Plan.
Lacina: The 16th I may have a...
Duffy: About that is...
Bolkcom: Well, what would be a better day? The next week the Board has chosen to take off, the week before is not going to work because we have a member out of town. Did somebody have an alternative date they'd like to throw out?
Lacina: Do we really need to go out? I guess I support their proposal, think they've got a good working plan and I'm sure that our time is well spent. If somebody has specific questions, I think if they want to set up a meeting we could try and hit it but...
Bolkcom: Well, I'm free the 16th, I would just soon, they really would like to meet with us and if there's not a time there's not a time but maybe we'll just, are any other members of the Board free the 16th?
Jordahl: I could be there on the 16th.
Stutsman: I could too. I guess I would like to, and I've wanted to go to a Conservation Board meeting so that would be a good time just to, what time does the Conservation Board meeting?
Bolkcom: They meet at 5:30.
Stutsman: 5:30?
Jordahl: Do we want to go out early and do a tour or something?
Stutsman: I guess.
Jordahl: Just be there at 5:30.
Stutsman: Maybe 4:30.
Jordahl: 4:30?
Stutsman: I have another meeting from 4:00 to 6:00 but I think I can rearrange that.
Bolkcom: Do you want me to set something up for 4:30?
Stutsman: That would be fine.
Bolkcom: And if people can make it they can make it.
Stutsman: And if people can make it then that will work. We'll probably have to post an agenda and things if there's more than 2 of us going out.
Lacina: Well, they'll probably have an agenda.
Bolkcom: Right.
Lacina: So if they just list on the Supervisors (inaudible).
Stutsman: So that would take care of that.
Bolkcom: And one last thing, the Iowa City Jazz Fest, Amana Iowa City Jazz Fest next weekend, Thursday and Friday, downtown Iowa City. That's it.
REPORT (STUTSMAN): ATTENDED IOWA CITY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Stutsman: OK. I attended the Iowa City Chamber Board of Directors meeting this morning and there was discussion about the library cultural center update and that also entered a short discussion about the local option sales tax so there's still a lot of discussion to be had about both issues and what the Chamber's role is going to be on that. I think that's probably, they did present their audit report and I have a copy of that audit if anybody is interested in looking at that. I think that was everything that went on with that. Anything else? Anything from the County Attorney?
Lyness: No.
Stutsman: OK.
Lyness: I think you skipped the inquiries and reports from the public, did you do that?
Stutsman: I think we, I did ask for that.
Lyness: OK, good.
Stutsman: OK, so Carol, did you have something?
Peters: Unfortunately, yes. Back to Boards and Commissions. You still have a vacancy on your Nutrition Board, this is a 2 year unexpired term. Compensation Commission, this person needs to be an owner of farm property and this only (inaudible) and you need another member for your Compensation Board. We have advertised these vacancies at least once and on some occasions twice.
Stutsman: So, it time to maybe do some recruitment of individuals.
Peters: Yes.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: Sounds good.
Peters: (Inaudible).
Stutsman: Sometimes that's what it takes.
Peters: Personal touch.
Stutsman: The personal touch because people read these application ads in the paper and just kind of glance over them and it does probably take somebody to contact individual people and say this is what's involved and if you're interested, apply.
Peters: Just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Welsh: Mike Foster is going to talk to a couple of people who (inaudible).
Stutsman: Good, very good. Are there deadlines for any of those positions, Carol?
Peters: We don't have a deadline because there's not a memo.
Stutsman: OK.
Peters: A press release going out. You might want to set a deadline for your own benefit.
Stutsman: I think that probably would be a good idea just to keep us on track.
Peters: (Inaudible).
Lacina: There was some discussion about asking an Iowa City Council person to sit on that Nutrition Committee and we kind of let it drop but would this be the time?
Bolkcom: I think they've declined to do it.
Lacina: Totally? I mean...
Bolkcom: From their response to us, it's my recollection. We got a response to our...
Stutsman: I guess I can't remember that, but maybe to clarify maybe we could ask again and just...
Lacina: Give (inaudible) a call maybe at this time?
Bolkcom: It's a good thing to have.
Stutsman: I think it would be too. OK.
Jordahl: What are the boards again, just for clarification?
Peters: Nutrition Advisory Board, Compensation Commission, this is better known for anybody out there that's interested, it's also referred to as the Condemnation Commission, they go out and do sites that are being condemned by either the State, Federal, County, Cities, whatever.
Stutsman: They meet randomly.
Peters: On call.
Stutsman: On call.
Peters: Yes. These names are submitted to the judge and the judge pulls names and so sometimes people's names are never pulled, it's just like jury duty and then other times a persons name may be selected several times. It's only on an as needed basis and they are contacted by the Sheriff's Department to serve on this committee.
Lacina: I think the only one that's really paid, they're paid for their time.
Peters: That's true.
Lacina: That's about the only...
Peters: Yes.
Stutsman: And then the other was Compensation Board?
Peters: Yes.
Lacina: Which set the elected officials' salaries. That's where we need, no we need a farmer for Compensation.
Peters: Uh-huh an owner of farm property.
Lacina: OK.
Jordahl: Now, the distinction here is Commission and Board, right? We need a farmer for the Commission?
Peters: Yes.
Stutsman: And the Compensation Board usually just meets just once a year, is that correct?
Peters: They meet once a year and that is the body that recommends salaries for elected officials.
Lacina: This would be our appointment?
Peters: Correct.
Jordahl: This does not have to be in any particular category?
Peters: No. They do have to be a resident of Johnson County.
Bolkcom: So they determine what the wages are of elected officials.
Peters: Correct.
Bolkcom: OK.
Jordahl: Who do we recommend?
Peters: That they recommend.
Bolkcom: They recommend, I'm sorry.
Peters: (Inaudible).
Bolkcom: We determine. OK. Good.
Stutsman: Anything else Carol?
Peters: That's all. Thank you very much.
Stutsman: So, if we can get any names to Carol or to Board members, that would be great. OK, I guess that takes of it then. So, we are adjourned.
Adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Melinda McCleary, Recording Secretary