Reconvened at 10:38 a.m.

Jordahl: We're in discussion now of the Johnson County Land Use Plan. Rick and R.J. so you want to step forward to the microphone here.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: Morning. I think you called this meeting so that you folks could discuss the information that was presented to you at the last public hearing..

Stutsman: So, I am going off of the correct copy. this is 12-7-98 copy.

Dvorak: I do have a few extra copies made.

Lacina: Were there any changes that the Zoning Commission made for the document when they had the Public Hearing.

Dvorak: Yes, as was brought up to you at the last meeting. If you look at the document, what we did was left the information in that you had presented to the Zoning Commission that would be indicated by page 4 for example. The lines that were crossed out were what the Zoning Commission recommended removing form the document. If you go to next page you'll see where there are lines underlined, that would be the new language that they would propose putting into the document.

Lacina: OK

Dvorak: And the latest version for the public's information was from 12-7-98 and those changes are the only changes that were made to the document since you folks gave it to the Zoning Commission.

Stutsman: Well there was one change under parks and open space.

Dvorak: What page Sally?

Stutsman: I'm sorry, page 16, under 7 and it would be 2. Reserve parks and open space in locations while so to serve the subdivision. They had taken out public.

Dvorak: What they thought the intent of this was, and R.J. can jump in too, we had so many meeting it's hard to remember exactly what they were looking at, but what I think they were trying to encourage would be that within the subdivisions, being that we have over 30 some thousand acres of park and recreational space right now and when we started this document we got in touch with the Conservation Board and at that time they were not interested in having any more parks in the County because of the designates areas to date, so I thought what they were trying to do, is to encourage more of a conservation in subdivision with outlots that would be used for parts.

Moore: Exactly and I think one of the other thing that they also tried to do with that change that did there was to try to make it a little clearer about when we create open space in a private subdivisions that that's not available to the public per say it's there for the use of those people that own property within that subdivision, and therefore the statement that well suited to serve the public might have people thinking that when we create open space in a subdivision that it was available for the public and it wasn't, it was available for the people who own property within that subdivision and of course you know that creating open space for us has many advantages or benefits approved to the County. Preservation of Ag ground there or environmentally sensitive areas and I think and I can't remember because some of their conversation was different, but they felt that if you go up to number 1 under that there where the needs of recreation meet the needs growing population, and that was more in line with open space and parks and stuff there and that statement would cover that, and as Rick said that number 2 there, was again to help facilitate our conservation subdivision design process.

Stutsman: The only problem I have with this and maybe its not a concern, but I'm going to express it anyway, is that are we setting up a system where the only way people have access to open space or recreational areas is if you live in a subdivision and if you are able to pay to live in that subdivision, and I remember at one time there was big discussion in some area where there was a public lake and the whole lake area was developed and the public couldn't get access to this lake because it was all private property, and you think, wait a minute are we setting up a system where only the wealthy have access to the public areas. Do you understand my line of thinking.

Lacina: This isn't about public area Sally, and I think that that's part of the distinction. Number one they own it. So unless the County is going to come in and emdenify the fact that somebody that gets hurt there that they're not liable, I'm not sure if I'm in subdivision and I own a lot and I want to set some of it aside so I don't have haul my kids to Kent Park I want them to be able to go out in the timber that we're preserving or the field and play, and the surrounding neighbors are one thing. They pay the taxes, n it they own it, they are preserving the sensitive area. It's public in it that subdivision is public, it's not public in that I have a right to go use Kent Park, I have a right to go and use their open area or something that they are trying to preserve. The liability is question, they're paying the taxes, they own it. I think the open space...you're point in valid in terms of true public lands or public recreation, but this is private ownership ground that we're asking for them to set aside to save the timber , or save the sensitive area,

Jordahl: The city of Tiffin I know requires to set aside I think it's 5% of the area of a subdivision for a public park space and the logic of that is to help them develop a trail system so that there is this public ground which is then not privately owned but which is owned by the City and provides this network and ability to traverse around the subdivision by stream corridors or whatever and providing this recreational opportunity for all of the citizens of the City and the general public while at the same time connecting the open space. I think the joint logic of item 7.2 and 7.3, reserving parks and open space and location well suited to serve the public and encourage the development a web of trails connecting public parks and open spaces. And open spaces, that part doesn't necessarily say public open spaces I think if you had a public trail going past a private open space you would still have that idea of scenery. It's like a road going by a subdivision that had open space you would have a scenic sense that you're going by something that has this feeling of the rural ambience you have this view, you don't necessarily have the right to go off the road and camp in somebody's yard but you have the ability to travel past it.

Stutsman: Maybe we could just say open space, and location well suited to serve the subdivision, and leave out parks. Maybe it's the parks that I react to. Setting up playgrounds and parks and all of that and have a big gate saying that nobody can use it unless you're a member of the subdivision, and I can understand the logic that if they pay for it they should be able to use it, but maybe if we just say reserve open space and location well suited to serve the...

Lacina: That would be better.

Dvorak: I'm still concerned a little bit about having within every subdivision a park that the County had to maintain, and maybe I'm just trying to remember the reasoning for changing that one word, and maybe that would be so there weren't a County park in every subdivision, that it was more intended to be just to preserve some area for open space within that subdivision would be (inaudible). I don't remember exactly the reason, but that was kind of what I briefly remember.

Jordahl: We're talking about an interconnected web, are they part of this is the idea that in our role of safeguarding the public realm, what we are doing with the public money is for the public benefit and are we making rules for governing land use, why? Not because we want to control individuals but because we have the question of a general public benefit, whether it's applied to that individual case or to the recreational opportunities above everyone to go take advantage of the way thing have been developed. And what we've got here this web talking about interconnected forest trying to preserve unbroken tracts of forest we're looking at the public benefits of having tracts of forest for a while, life habitat for example, not simply as a benefit for any one subdivision but also in the general layout of the land in the County. The open space provision maybe forested open space, there's kind of a contradiction in terms or it may be an open prairie as part of subdivision, the idea here of this interconnected web with trails going there, the idea is that it should be connected to this principal of having the subdivision set aside this open space work within that pattern right?

Dvorak: Encouraging clustering, like you were talking about fragmenting of woodlands is very dangerous to the wildlife. Say, if you might have a great timber stand and you prove that wildlife travel through that, and all of sudden you put 25 houses in the middle of that and you fragment 2 timbers, or actually one continuous timber , that could be very bad for the environment.

Lacina: So, going back to the first question though, do we strike the words park, I would support that.

Stutsman: So it just says reserve open space and location well suited to serve the subdivision.

Lacina: Would that, I think that reads better with the intent.

Jordahl: Well, the Conservation Board is certainly well within their rights to express an opinion about what type of park space they wish to manage, however the Board of Supervisors in looking forward and trying to establish a vision for the County in terms of land use would be within it's rights to say that we would like to see parks in locations well suited to serve the public in a way that looked beyond a park in western Johnson County and looked at the need for park space in northeast and southwest and southeast Johnson County that may not currently exist, I think part of the function of this document is to establish a vision rather that simply to talk about where or how we're currently going to maintain parks.

Lacina: It's another thing to be able to support the idea as opposed to just having some lofty idea if the subdivision is going to suddenly all decide that they are going to give all this parkland to the County are you prepared to take this parkland and put the dollars behind it to maintain it. If you have this under the idea of open space, non-buildable lots, some areas that are not sewerable and type of things, and make it a commitment of the subdivision you don't have that expense. You still have a space for the kids to go play ball close to the house and it's safe. If you start establishing parks all over the County then you better have the resource to take care of those parks. Right now, we've got one out there by me on Scott, that needs a little more attention, so right now, I'm not sure that we have the resources to adequately take care of all of the areas we've got now to include Mr. Morgan that came in and they were doing so much volunteer work down there, I mean there are a lot of areas that we really need to address before we take on a lot more land.

Stutsman: Why don't we do say in the first one meet the recreational need of a growing population, so I figure it is addressed there.

Jordahl: So, in terms of having parks that are in need of maintenance or additional attention have you expressed those concerns to the Conservation Board or the Director.

Lacina: Yes, and they say when you can adequately fund us we can address that. When Rod was just in here, and you'll have to decide, are you prepared to give him his full request.

Jordahl: Are you of the opinion that we are not adequately funding them currently.

Stutsman: Let's stick to the Land Use Plan and not talk about Conservation Budget.

Lacina: OK so parks is out.

Dvorak: Excuse me, logistically are we at an informal meeting do we ant to change the document now or do we want to change the document formally on Thursday.

Jordahl: I think we ought to formally change it on Thursday.

Lacina: Code says the Zoning Commission is to develop a plan and give it to the Board of Supervisors to modify change and submit back, then with these modifications if we make this changes, it will need to go back to them for review doesn't it?

Stutsman: No.

Dvorak: No, well Pat's here and he can answer it better than I can.

Duffy: It should go back whether it's legal or not.

Lacina: It was my understanding the way the code read is that it is to be an exchange between the Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors until it is worked out, it isn't to just be a cursory here Zoning Commission and then come back and we'll do whatever we wish. My understanding is that I goes back and forth until it is resolved.

White: Whether it has to go back would depend on whether it was a significant or substantial change. The one you're discussing in my opinion would not be. You have the discretion to send it back for whatever consideration you wish.

Lacina: So if there is a substantive change then in prudence we should send it back. Thanks.

Duffy: Pat, I had asked this a couple of times, and I'm going to ask it again. I've been going to a couple of the County Land Use Meeting, they thought this was just a guide and it does say this in here that they would not have to follow, and I asked the other day is it a binding document, or would you explain when it says that Johnson County Land Use Plan is a tentative guide for this purpose. What does that mean?.

White: What it means is that the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be a way to measure the correctness of your zoning decision. State law requires that any zoning you do, the substantive ordinance or your individual zonings, be done in accordance with your Comprehensive Plan so each time you vote on a rezoning you theoretically hold it up against your Comprehensive Plan and make a judgement that it's in accordance with the comprehensive plan, and if it's not then the law would say you should not approve that rezoning. It's not necessarily incorrect to say that it's a guide but I think that short changes a little bit the actual legal effect.

Duffy: In other words there are a lot of things that I am really concerned about in this plan, and it just looks like to me that it needs more work than on if this plan did not take 2 and half years, when was Karen Countryman hired, Rick do you know.

Dvorak: I'd say June, may or June.

Duffy: No way am I going to vote for this the way it is. I see not protecting agricultural land, but I look at it another way. The word protect is used quite a bit but there should be some leadway in here and some of these thing I just don't can't. It's more of restricting the property, I don't see anything here. There is some Federal Dollars to buy out some of the developed (inaudible). I don't see anything like that in this. And to be fair to everybody I think Johnson County has done a good job, but this thing here I think, well I'm just not satisfied with it, and it would take too long to go through all of this, but I will do it on Thursday.

Jordahl: I think that's what we need to do is just to address specific points.

Duffy: And it's too bad that we couldn't have had a night meeting, for this, or a special meeting. Supervisors in the past have had a night special, and this is special, it's just too bad that we can't do that.

Jordahl: And I agreed with you that's it's nice to have night meetings to talk about these things Charlie.

Duffy: I mean this plan.

Jordahl: Yeah, I agree.

Stutsman: Well we had like what, Planning and Zoning had how many night meetings.

Dvorak: 3 or 4.

Stutsman: Yeah, I think we have had night meetings then.

Duffy: But we're the Supervisors, when we make the decisions on this it should be a night meeting.

Jordahl: Well, we did have a night meeting on the 17th do a Public Hearing on this matter.

Duffy: Well. We better listen to the tapes and see what it says.

Jordahl: Supervisors should prepare in a variety of ways. Reread the old Comp Plan reread this one, make sure we've got all the points covered. I mean, if we're going to adopt this thing on Thursday then we'd better be prepared to stand behind it be satisfied with it, speak the hour or hold your piece.

Duffy: I think we've wasted some other times up here. We should have gotten on this plan and there some other things we didn't have to do. This is serious business.

Jordahl: It is Charlie.

Duffy: Talking about private property and talking about trails and that and open spaces. There is only about 48% of the people are property owners that pay tax, and I don't like to see too much more of this going off of the tax roles.

Stutsman: And I agree to Charlie, we've got lots of other things to deal with, and I think that's why I am ready to vote for this plan. I think that it's not perfect, you know, nothing ever is, and I think that we could really discuss it from now until Doomsday, a and still not have the perfect document that everybody feels totally confident in approving but it's an update and I think there are some good things in it, there are some things I would like to see changed too, but I guess, in view of the fact that we have spent a fair amount of times on this. We have had a number of Public Hearings on it, and have had a lot of public input on it, I think I'm ready to vote on this and to move onto other things. This isn't cast in stone, you know, we certainly...

Duffy: That's the thing, is it cast in stone or not, that's what I'm trying to get at.

Jordahl: Well not until we vote on it.

Stutsman: Well what I meant by cast in stone is that...

Duffy: And after it's moved that's the big thing Sally.

Stutsman: ...is that it can be reviewed, and don't we say that in 3 years that we review this again.

Duffy: That don't matter to me if it's reviewed in 3 years, or 1 year, or 10 years, or 20 years, that's what I want t know, how stationary is this.

Jordahl: It's as stationary as we want it to be Charlie. If we get this approved on the 31st and there's a consensus of the new Board, you know January 2nd, that they hate it and want to open back up again, I'm sure that's within their power to do.

Stutsman: Right, and too Charlie I have heard you mention during this whole discussion that there are thing that you don't like and things you want to change and yet I have not heard any specifics and it's just real hard for me...

Duffy: Well, I tried to talk to you Sally...

Lacina: Well now, Charlie and I both did try and we were repeatedly told that there were 3 votes and a lot of it was ignored so I think this Zoning Commission made some good recommendations on the plan and I support the change of the parks in the one paragraph but let's not carried away and let's focus back. Do we have any other changes that we need to make before Thursday.

Jordahl: Before we focus back on those specific changes I feel that it's important that the members of the public and I hope that you and all of us have an understanding, and certainly it has been my intention and I think we've followed this pattern of policy throughout these discussion on the Comprehensive Plan that we were not satisfied to go through and change points on the basis of a 3 to 2 vote. I don't know when that ever happened, I think whenever you say that you and Charlie had reservations and when it was said well you got the 3 votes to go ahead, we didn't.

Lacina: We didn't say that we were told repeatedly through the session and the minutes will reflect that, that you had the 3 votes to move forward, so a lot of the issues that we did bring forward were not addressed.

Jordahl: That doesn't correspond with my memory, my memory is that I repeatedly say, let's not do that, what are your concerns, let's hear that and we went back to that point and tried to address your concerns you were raising.

Lacina: When we left the room and you and Karen Countryman were doing a lot of the rewrites I don't recall being invited back in to have comments, in fact Sally even commented, we all commented that there was some writing going on behind the scenes that we were not aware of. That is water over the dam. To the plan now we need to address the issues, I support the change of the word parks in that paragraph, are there other changes we need to make for Thursday. And I support what the Zoning Commission did, I think they made some recommendation which enhance the plan and made it more usable in the long run and again I caution the Board this isn't something which in my opinion should be waived in developers faces going oh, it's in the plan, because in the past we have stated that this is in plan, we choose to deviate from it. Because, there are instances which will come to the Board which don't always work. So, it's a guide, you're empowering resolutions will make it quote, the law. But, I think that they made some good changes.

Jordahl: The writing of the plan in most cases took place out of the room whether it was with JCCOG or R.J. or Karen or whatever it was not a material issue as to where the writing took place.

Duffy: Well I thought you had, you had been, some of this was suggested Karen Countryman by you, Jonathan...

Jordahl: And some of this was suggested by you Charlie.

Duffy: No, no, I think that if you wrote or suggested quite a lot of this stuff Jonathan.

Jordahl: No, Charlie, I wrote almost nothing in this plan.

Duffy: You didn't suggest or talk to Karen Countrymen.

Jordahl: You bet I talked to Karen Countrymen.

Duffy: and you talked to the Planning and Zoning Board up there

Jordahl: But Karen wrote this stuff.

Lacina: And you didn't give her any documents on the lab top and didn't give any paper.

Stutsman: I think we all had the opportunity to do that, you know some had been more...

Lacina: I'm not saying we didn't have the opportunity I'm saying that when you made the statement that we all had this great input, I just wanted to clarify that point.

Jordahl: We had an equal opportunity to have input.

Lacina: What other changes do we need to make to the plan.

Jordahl: I have a suggestion of just one specific point that I had prepared for the meeting on the 17th and I wanted to have discussion of, but since the meeting on the 17th was primarily of just getting input format he public, I didn't hand it out at that time, but I would like to pass it out at this time. This is the one area of the plan that I think at least bears some discussion. We don't necessarily have to make this change but I think it should be discussed.

Lacina: On page 15?

Jordahl: Yes, page 15. This is the residential section, section 5 on page 15, of the draft of 12-7. If anyone else would like to have a of at that, Rick or R.J., or any member of the public.

Stutsman: Here's some more copies.

Peters: I'll go make some more.

Stutsman: A couple more.

Jordahl: Here's a few more. OK Section 5 say consider appropriately located residential development where disturbance to natural land features such as steep slopes, flood plain, forest, prairie, (inaudible), and habitat and wetlands is minimal, and I'm suggesting altering the order of items here to move point 2, the discouragement of proposals of residential rezoning and non-farm developments of areas which are centrally agricultural in character up to 3.1, and then completely rewriting what is now point 1 as follows, some limited rezoning for non-farm development may be considered in areas not suited for agriculture, in no case, however, should development be allowed to occur in rural areas at a such a density as to require any upgrading of the County Road System beyond that planned for and designated in the County 5 Year Road Plan. We've got a Transportation Management study that has been completed by the County Engineer, and the Johnson County Council of Governments Chair, Jeff Davidson, and the Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, and that plan I think needs to be linked to this plan in a specific way and specifically at the point of how development can tend to try to drive decision about which roads that we improve. I think that we need in our 5 year road plan to be setting out where we intend to have roads developed in the County and we need to approve development only in areas where the infrastructure is in place or planned to be in place to serve that development, and it we want allow development to occur in an area then we should put that road in the 5 year plan. I'm not saying stop all development along gravel roads; I'm saying if we want to allow dense development along a gravel road we beet put that in the 5 year plan, linking the 2 documents. Well what do you think.

Lacina: It deals with the road question by saying no, but V1 which is in the plan presently, address a great deal more in terms of sensitive areas and the environmental policies which you left out.

Jordahl: Yes, maybe it shouldn't be left out, and we should just add the point that I written as V2. We could put V2 as V7 or something.

Lacina: Couldn't V2 be built into the goals and objectives in the back, or not. Strategies?

Jordahl: Bering specific, it does strike me as being a little bit specific as being for putting it in that section of the document.

Lacina: I guess I like the way V1 reads which is consider the appropriate located residential development where disturbance to natural land features such as deep slope, flood plain, forest, prairie, remnants of wildlife habitants is minimal please see section 1 environmental policies. That, true doesn't address roads, but I think it addresses a lot of other areas that are just as important, what we're dealing with in your re-write Jonathan is a struggle the Supervisors are going to have for a long time in terms of finance, and I don't know if that question should be dealt with in the Land Use Plan.

Jordahl: Well it doesn't say finance it says plan.

Lacina: I understand.

Stutsman: I do like what Jonathan has put here, and I do support kind of putting it in. I think we do struggle about our responsibility if we continue to put rezoning, residential rezoning in the County you know where that leaves the Boards as far as our commitment to upgrade the roads to make those rezonings safe for the people who live on those and have to drive back and forth to work and things, so I think that holds us accountable, that if we're going to continue to rezone than we have to realize that we are going to have to make a commitment to upgrade roads, on County Roads that are not equipped to handle additional traffic.

Dvorak: Jonathan we have something, that it obviously not the same language but, on page 14, paragraph 3.4 is what the Zoning Commission put just a brief ending to a sentence. Again, I don't know if that is being redundant or maybe even the same thing, but it's some pretty harsh language.

Lacina: Yeah the developer bares all the costs of improvements.

Dvorak: It's not the same.

Stutsman: But then again I wonder of the developer says I'll improve that section of road that's in front of my development then the County has a responsibility to approve the rest of the road, where does that leave that, does he bare the responsibility for the entire road.

Jordahl: That's not sufficiently clear, and I think what could be done to clarify that would be say to change the language should not be approved unless the developer agrees to pay the full cost of hard surfacing the road from his development to the next hard surface road period. And, that would say what we are implying on being said, I don't want that 3.4 to be interpreted to mean you go ahead and throw down seal coat on the 4 mile road in front of the development.

Lacina: I don't think it's realistic to expect the developer of a 4 or 5 lot subdivision somewhere near a timer area to hard surface the road.

Jordahl: Would that have an undue impact on rural county infrastructure, 4 lot subdivision, perhaps not.

Lacina: Well, if you build it into your plan.

Jordahl: Well undue, we have to define undue at some point, that's the area of flexibility for future Boards.

Lacina: I think for states the impact on rural infrastructure no, unless the developer agrees to bare all improvement costs, I don't support the change I support the language the Zoning Commission has reviewed.

Duffy: What do you mean by development 1 house, 2 house, 3 house.

Stutsman: Well that's the question.

Jordahl: There's room for future Boards to decide that. I think one possible change we could make to this plan would be to come up with an addendum to put some numbers behind this. Part of the implementation strategies is to define, like a glossary, to talk about what does development mean what is a developer, what is undue impact, all o that can be quantified within the current plan, but it could also be a step toward ordinance, or it could be ordinances.

Lacina: But could it work in reverse if you quantify it, and the traffic for one reason or another surpasses that, will the County then commit to increasing attention to that road to up grade it. I can see a lot of traffic generating in the County from different areas that may use roads that don't have subdivisions on them, I mean, we're assuming that every subdivision impacts that road but there is a lot of traffic going by, UPS trucks, fuel trucks whatever. If we are going to quantify to say no to a developer from the one side, we also have to give to community hope that we're not going to just deteriorate a road system that at some point when traffic counts reach a certain point we have a commitment to upgrade a road. We did lose a lawsuit a one car accident on a strip that had one house on it that the road was questionably constructed and the courts ruled we were at fault. So, we do have an obligation not only to tell the public in some cases no, but to step in there and so to quantify what I'm saying is we have to go both ways. If we're going to tell them no because you can't reach this number, than at that point when any road in the County reaches that number we have to step up and fix it.

Jordahl: Well I think you're right there's clearly and implication going both ways. That's part of the transportation management study that's ongoing. We do already have some numbers there and as that study is carried on through the rest of the County and I'm interested in seeing as to whether we could accelerate that process and fund it perhaps to get it some assistance and get that done for a much broader segment of the County Roads to come up with a plan that does put number behind it County wide. That does not undercut the language in my proposed change here or perhaps addition. I don't mind keeping the language that you were talking about there considering that's where it impacts various environmental features is minimal. But, I think that the link to the County 5 year road plan should be explicit in this way and that the specification of which roads have to be approved, and to what level our responsibility for transportation safety in the County as a whole is addressed both in the Transportation Management Plan and the in the 5 Year Road Plan. So, by referring to the 5 Year Road Plan here I'm saying look there for the details, but look here for the question in principle of whether we should approve development in an area or not.

Lacina: I can see the quantification possibly as a tool in looking at roads when you come up with a LESA total points. The flip side is a concern that I've got is if you use the traffic count solely you're going to build all your roads around Iowa City, Coralville, where as you're greatest traffic volumes in the rural volumes in the rural areas, with your exception of you major roads, Highway 1 and 6 and those, you will not be able to replace the bridges or upgrade those roads and in some cases with the seed plant in North Liberty, the demand is seasonal when they really move a lot of seed trucks and all that. But on an annual basis you're not going to justify doing anything down in that area. Basing it just by a numerical system, because obviously the Wal-Mart trucks coming up Highway 1 cutting through your major municipality that's where you're going to have a ring of transportation, so I can see it as a tool, but on the other hand, I'm not sure it's going to serve the rural community well.

Jordahl: I think you're talking here about the Transportation Plan and not the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. You're talking about road construction around cities, clearly the County Engineer and the Board of Supervisors have to balance the need for a grid County wide and make transportation possible from all parts of the County safely, against the volume of traffic and the way that that impacts the question of safety. That's a balancing act that we're going to continue to do and that's going to be addressed in the 5 Year Road Plan.

Lacina: I guess my concern is before I refer to something I would like to see the something.

Jordahl: You have the opportunity to create the something, the 5 Year Road Plan is a thing that's reviewed annually by the Board of Supervisors, if we find that the demand for rezoning in a particular area, and the Board agrees that's an area that ought to be developed and served by sufficient infrastructure to develop that development to occur than that Board will put it in the 5 Year Plan.

Lacina: Not if it isn't justified by you number system doesn't justify it.

Jordahl: The Board could certainly put it into plan by simply wishing to develop and area.

Lacina: I disagree, if you have a quantified number system you don't jump road a head of the other if it's lower in numerical sequence.

Stutsman: Well it think it's just like the LESA total, there would be a number of things, It's just not the LESA total, there would be other things, it's not just if we've reached 290 cars.

Lacina: That needs to be stated that it is one of the tools used as opposed to the numerical system.

Jordahl: Well this doesn't reference a numerical system in fact. It talks about the impact of that development on the road according to whatever system is in place by which road are planned to be upgraded.

Lacina: I think it's too confusing to the public as well, when they come in and try to look at our Land Use Plan, we're sending them to the 5 Year Plan, I think what we've got is...

Stutsman: I guess I think the very opposite Steve, I think it's very clear that we're connecting, and proving a development by what we see in our 5 Year Road Plan. I think it gives a developer more sense that we're not going to approve a development if it's going to inquire major improvements on a road, and here we've got something that we can really relate it back to. Instead of kind of picking things out of the air. We've got a 5 Year Road Plan, we've got a transportation system that we have tried to work with, and that this relates it to it, I think I support it.

Lacina: I don't, the 5 year Road Plan...

Stutsman: I'm not so sure Charlie supports it either.

Lacina: The Road Plan is driven by finances and in the tax freeze years we've flat out gutted a lot of the stuff that we were going to do, so now you're looking at long term residential development and infrastructure buildings on a 5 Year Plan, which we all know if it's out beyond 2 years, in fact we've got one, one year out, that just about salvoes in Solon, so that whole plan is such a constant state of flux depending on road dollars and tax dollar, that's not in my opinion, a good thing to make a land plan on, but that's my opinion.

Duffy: I would say again that I go 175 miles from about 4 different counties, and what I see these interstate highways, that double, and this is the Land Use Plan but we're losing, and some of these cities are getting too big, like Des Moines going to have a 4 laner from Des Moines to Marshalltown, and them from Des Moines to Burlington, Muscatine a 4 laner to Davenport, they got about half of it done and some of the best farm land that we have, but I did come back on Wapsi Avenues, and I see this that's east Iowa City, and I see the bridge over the interstate and then what's in a couple blocks I see a dirt road, that's why I have a little trouble Jonathan, when you say that there's just so much traffic on this road we're not going to do anything with it, but right there is a way around Iowa City, and Iowa City needs it. There's a lot of people, a lot of farmer's especially, that take that road when it's muddy don't try to get on that dirt road cause you're going to get stuck.

Jordahl: Well then we should put it in the 5 year road plan.

Duffy: What I'm saying is that there has to be road, and in the Des Moines register a week ago they're talking about these smaller cities and the way around the cities, and you have to have that option for folks who want to stop and shop a little different but that's the reason why you have to have a road plan, this has to be looked at.

Jordahl: Well we discussed that with reference to the 140th street situation up by Solon, we got Deer Creek Road as not in the 5 Year Plan but would provide a way around the City.

Duffy: That would be annexed you want to get out a little farther.

Jordahl: Well wouldn't other roads that you're going to build around the City be similarly annexed.

Duffy: No they wouldn't that's a little different story up that 140th street.

Lacina: The purpose of zoning and platting is to make a determination of what the most appropriate use of the land, not whether the County can afford to fix it's roads. The Land Use Plan should take a look at a piece of property and if it's a farm sitting on a concrete road and the best use of that farm is Ag land, when they come in for a residential zone we say no. I think what we're doing is allowing finances to drive the land plan as opposed to looking at the most appropriate use of the land. The second thing in my opinion if the public and the best use of that land determines it's to be residential, then the government has an obligation to serve them and come up and fix that road, not come up with all these other mechanisms to say no.

Jordahl: I think the primary function we have up here as a Board of Supervisors is precisely to be governed by the financial considerations, and we got a budget process right now that we just heard this morning about juvenile detentions costs. We start and end with what we can afford to do here and basically what can we pay for, and if we approve development and then have to provide roads that we can't afford to pay for where are we.

Duffy: Well Jonathan keep in mind that half of Road Department budget is about $6 million comes from gas tax, and other, it's not County dollars. Solon, we've already got that.

Jordahl: And can we meet our current construction needs?

Duffy: Plus the fact that the property owners pay tax anyway so if you're going to pave these roads out in front of the their house if I was on the City Council I wouldn't even do it (inaudible) the City.

Stutsman: Well the other thing I was going to say about the Land Use Plan is when it says plan, to me, that's a plan to approach all development and I think you cannot divorce the financial commitment that County has for continued development in rural areas. if we just had a plan that just said you have land that's not good for farming put houses on there, we do have a responsibility to provide services and make a financial commitment to that continued development, so I can see its appropriate to consider the financial as well as the development part of it as we're looking at these Land Use Policies.

Lacina: It's a component, but it shouldn't drive the Land Use Plan, plus the fact during the tax year freezes because of the construction and growth in the County, one year we didn't have to take all the increase that we were even allowed so the new construction they are contributing substantially to the community and to the budget and I'm just saying that we have an obligation also to take a look at some of the areas and enhance roads in the County. I visited yesterday with the outgoing engineer over in Cedar County who was explaining to me in their budget all the positive things they're doing to enhance their infrastructure in roads in that County, and I come back here and I have to just shake my head. We have a choice we can deteriorate our County, and ignore those areas and not put in bridges, and not upgrade the roads and say no we can't have construction out there because we're doing such a poor job on the roads or we can be proactive and do good job and serve the community and have a compromise.

Jordahl: Are you saying that we are deteriorating our roads and not providing services to the public as we should be.

Lacina: We just had a debate about a road that we were going to put on hold because it wouldn't meet some numerical formula of some sort after we had it in the 5 Year Plan, went through the grating and we were going to stop it. I do think the citizens came in and told us that very point Jonathan.

Jordahl: What very point?

Lacina: That we were not keeping up with where we should be to improve these roads as they needed it.

Jordahl: I don't think we need to completely revisit that topic here. It was my intention at the time that we had adequate infrastructure to serve that transportation need in place.

Lacina: I guess the question was getting at was that the public came in at the time and addressed... Which the public obviously felt wasn't the case.

Jordahl: And that there were needs elsewhere in the County that counter-balanced it.

Duffy: No that's...

Lacina: The same day that we put in a bridge on a road that had a 15 a day traffic count. Which we all voted for.

Jordahl: Which in retrospect should have been reconsidered.

Lacina: I support the change of parks I do not support the proposal on V2 or 1.

Jordahl: Charlie?

Duffy: School buses have to travel these roads Jonathan and I can't support it. Whether there is a house built there or not.

Lacina: So Joe will be the swing voter.

Jordahl: Now wait a minute, what does this have to School Busses, I agree with you...

Duffy: Talking about roads all the time.

Jordahl: I'm talking about subdivisions.

Duffy: Yes, but you're not saying how many subdivision. You know, out in the Corridor, what we call the Corridor, but that's been changed quite a bit, if I remember I've got the Corridor Plan at about 46% of the people had houses, had 2 persons a household, 7% only had one so then I see all these projected figures about all this traffic, don't build there. That someone from New York I think had come up with that and you just can't do thing like that.

Jordahl: I guess I'm as concerned as about the safety of school buses as you are, what I'm saying in this proposals is that we should not place dense residential development in areas where those very school buses would have to travel on inadequate roads.

Duffy: We ought to fix the road.

Jordahl: Exactly. We ought to put the roads in the 5 Year Plan and fix them if we're going to put development in that area. That's what I'm saying. I agree with you, we ought to fix the roads or not put development there, one or the other.

Lacina: Well but you are assuming that the bus wouldn't travel there anyway, if you have a farm family that's got a child in school the bus is going to run the road whether you have a subdivision or a farm house.

Jordahl: If we've got transportation needs for safety for school buses then that's going to be addressed in the 5 year plan as well. This is not saying that there must be a strict numerical criterion for the improvement for roads. This says that there should be a numerical criterion for whether you approve additional development on a road.

Duffy: It all depends what kind of land it is, not these and a lot of us have worked on the ordinance that you get what see of anybody builds up a rural area and the right to farm that land and I think that will hold up in court, not what the State was saying about areas, because anybody could go buy. But I'm hearing more and more and more of this how much it is costing, how much do the bike trails cost us, projected bike trails.

Jordahl: Relatively little.

Duffy: Millions and millions of dollars.

Stutsman: I think what this says to me is that we're recognizing that when we continue to put development in rural areas that we have a commitment as a Board to make sure that we have a good road system or infrastructure to those developments. To me it's just a plan full approach that if we're continue to improve developments the Board has to make commitment that those developments have a safe adequate roads.

Duffy: I think we're getting carried away with this road thing but your statement I agree with.

Lacina: I do agree with that.

Jordahl: We could modify this in some way to, I mean it say, if you want to do this then change the 5 year road , and there is no reason that any point open up the 5 year road plan and say gee this needs to be reconsidered because this is a good area for development a future Board could easily do that.

Duffy: It's not only for development/ like Greencastle road, that bridge should be in there. It's a straight shot from Linn County all the way down to Highway 1, that could take all the congestions off of I-65, and interstate 360 even.

Jordahl: OK, so let's say you do that, you got a good road going through there on Greencastle and then somebody comes in with an application for rezoning all on Greencastle avenue where you have a good road now, and you can say yes.

Lacina: Realistically you're not going to open up your road plan if you that then you have limited resources and you're going to have to bump some other project. Well you've got people who've been waiting 3, 4, 5 years out there. Well I'm sorry Jonathan.

Jordahl: No exactly you have limited resources.

Lacina: You have certain expectations of the community that you have to build into that road plan and you're not going to be jumping in, or you're going to pack the room and legitimately if you've got them built into the 5 year plan they should ripple through, with the exception of a bridge or the Flood of '93.

Duffy: I'm going to agree with that but I was saying again that I think one of the big problems of Johnson County is, and especially Iowa City, when I count cars with in a block, maybe 65 automobiles, I don't know how many are going north or going south. I don't think the County should get into anything like that, there's other ways around some of these cities. I would mention Greencastle, like Steve said the ones we talked about in the 5 Year Plan, but you might have a way in the future.

Stutsman: We need to have an executive session. Are there any other things that we need to...

Duffy: I've got a whole bunch of them but I think I'd better wait or it's going to be too...

Jordahl: Well we're going to have...

Stutsman: Charles could you before Thursday could you circulate those.

Duffy: I will if you have time.

Stutsman: I'll make time Charlie, because I think that's its important that we deal with these specifics and get this taken care of.

Jordahl: Are there any other items that individual members of the Board want to bring up for discussion at this point or are we going to wait until Thursday.

Stutsman: Can I just ask one just for my own information. There's a statement in here that I don't understand. On page 4, when it said the last paragraph, the first sentence, the Land Use Plan is intended as a guide for land use decision such as requests to change zoning classification and d utilize resources. Utilize resources, what does that mean, what is that referring to.

Moore: I think it was just talking about what you were just discussing, the 4 of you, how to best utilize the limited resources of this place running to provide infrastructure for the County as a whole, and that it's making that connection that you were just discussing about. A very important connection.

Lacina: And if you don't have it in there I think it will minimize the impact the rest of the document has, I do think you need that part in there.

Jordahl: If any one else wouldn't like to bring up a point I would like to revisit one, and that is right there on page 4, the major deletion that the Zoning Commission made in their discussion in the introductory section of the use plan, language that was deleted reading, the plan also invites consideration of these and other planning tools that would assist the County in carrying out he policy of this plan. Tools which have approved affective in other areas some of which are currently being studied my the state of Iowa Commission on Urban Planning on growth management of cities and protection of farm land, are urban growth boundaries and conservation (inaudible) purchase of developments right, the transfer of development rights, benefit or impact fees and regional government structures. Some of these are identified in the Johnson County Land Use Strategy Section of this Plan and are included in the implementation of schedule. I think that its somewhat internally contradictory for this section to be deleted in the context of those very policies being detailed later in the plan. I think that its an important part of the introduction to say that it is not just looking into the future but it's looking at currently available planning tools as ways of carrying out the policies that are embodied in the plan not saying that we will do those, but invites consideration at these. It says lets look creatively at what is out there to help us implement the vision, the policies of this plan. The plan may be a little short on numerical specifics, but it is long on the belief that creative minds can come up with solutions. We have had the Conservation, Subdivision Design Ordinance, and Sensitive Areas Ordinance propose and are currently being reviewed, brought to us by the Planning and Zoning staff without the benefit of this plan, but they are going to be embodied by the framework of this plan, and I would like to see this paragraph restored.

Lacina: In some cases it's redundant, and in other cases it refers to things that don't even exist and in the first part of the paragraph up above, it says the plan is meant as a guide to assist officials with decisions on land use about Johnson County, it establishes County wide goals and recommendation strategies to achieve these goals, that basically paraphrases what they struck. I think they were correct in taking it out.

Stutsman: Wasn't it their feeling that it was expressed elsewhere in the plan and the strategies and that just didn't, it wasn't totally necessary to put it here, so I guess I don't have a problem with the way the Zoning Commission said that.

Duffy: Well what was that first sentence Jonathan. Do you remember what you said.

Lacina: It's on page 4.

Duffy: But I thought you had the first sentence I might agree with but the rest of it.

Jordahl: The plan also invites the consideration of these and other planning tools that would assist the County is carrying out the policies of this plan.

Duffy: Yes, well I guess I was thinking of something else.

Jordahl: OK, sorry. Well we'll have an opportunity to revisit these topics on Thursday, all though as was suggested we don't want to be too sweeping about changes that we make. I think we could all probably go through this thing and find lots of stuff we'd like to change, but the point is that we've worked on it for a long time and we've come to significant points of agreement on areas of some controversy and we're ready to breathe a sigh of relief here myself.

Lacina: A question on Thursday then so far the only actual change is the word parks, so we don't need to change to document for Thursday, and we don't crank out, and kill a whole bunch of trees.

Jordahl: OK, so thank you gentleman, Rick and R.J.

Moore: Rick and I were looking at page 10, under preserved ag land and protected agricultural operations is that statement right at the beginning about 1,000 acres per year, and we can't quantify that right now, we don't know where that came from, and we were asked that by the Zoning Commissioners. Where did that come from.

Jordahl: It came from Karen.

Moore: OK, because we looked back through everything.

Jordahl: Just ask Karen because that's where that came from.

Moore: OK

Dvorak: OK

Moore: And the other is that on page 14, the change made by the Zoning Commission to 3.4, it's not the change that I had question about, but that undue impact. Again, there are some things that we have to quantify and I think that is one of those and again it goes back to the discussion that the 4 of you had earlier about road improvements and you're recommendations, Jonathan, is what is that, and it could be a very open ended question of what is an undue impact, and in the original document sent forward to you from the Zoning Commission was some numbers in there about gravel roads can handle up to 2 or 300 vehicles a day and after that there is an undue impact, it might be something you want to consider. I like the idea of the Road Management Plan and the 5 Year Road Construction Plan being used as tools as part of this document, they all intertwine to me. But to just say an undue impact that is a very arbitrary statement and we really need something to substantiate exactly what that is. Then I had just a couple of comments about the recommendations that you had Jonathan. One would be the first one and 2 is basically that's in conflict with what you just saw on page 14 under 3.4, those two statements are in conflict there, so we might have to work something out there.

Jordahl: Yeas, I agree with that, on fact my suggestion for a change to 3.4 to just stop top after the word approved.

Moore: And as my last comment in this again is for your V3 suggestion there, again, here it is quantifying something as what is adequate buffering. Is that is we do adopt language like that we hopefully somewhere, either you'll give us direction to create standards for you in the future, I don't know that it has to be in this document per say, but these are thing that we need to work on in Rick's office.

Lacina: And is near agriculture 1,000 feet or a mile, or 2 miles.

Moore: Well it's just because it's kind of open ended there. It's something that we can use but if we do use that kind of wording then we'll have to correct Rick and our staff to.

Lacina: Under undue impact would a footnote linking that to a strategy and then having a numerical system in that suffice.

Moore: I'm not sure or if that would be something that a standard that maybe Mike Gardner has at Secondary Roads where he recommends to you road improvements based on a certain number. That we can use, I don't necessarily have to have it in here I think, but some way to connect it to something then we have a standard that we can refer to, and when somebody comes to you with a proposal and you say it's an undue impact and they say why, you have to be able to say we have this that says it. It strengthens your decision making as well.

Jordahl: And Steve suggested on page 22 item 4, transportation, number 4, says develop criteria to evaluate proposed development on gravel roads and maybe instead of that we could put in the criteria.

Moore: Or refer to it somewhere, that Secondary Roads has criteria in place for when they upgrade roads or whatever or what we sued in the original document that came to you from the Zoning Commission a year or so ago, was a study done by Doctor Fisher at University of Iowa's Urban Regional (inaudible) Program, where he had done a study on roads. And what level ADT road surface type would reach before the cost of maintaining that surface where exceeding the cost of improving it and that's what we see I that first proposal.

Stutsman: Along with that same one on page 14 3.8, we have to define what are all improvement costs. Is it just improvement in front the of the subdivision is all the way the another hard surface road, what are all improvement costs.

Lacina: Is it condemnation of bridges, are we also with Farm to Marker Road moneys we've got to be careful in that area. If we get involved with that, the State will just dump us on that.

Jordahl: That is language that the Zoning Commission added and I would suggest that we just take it back out.

Lacina: Unless the developer agrees to contribute to improvement costs.

Stutsman: I don't know if it says it here, I know what we're talking about impact fees and thing of that sort, because I can see before, I could see a developer come in and say I will agree to hard surface right in front of the development, well then the County has got a responsibility that you just can't have a hard surface and turn it into gravel or whatever.

Duffy: Speaking of gravel, the County Road Department uses probably the best gravel of any other County in the State, at least that's the input. I would preserve that (inaudible) land of agricultural operations statistics indicate that approximately 1,000 acres per year of agricultural land are lost from the inventory to development, platting, and annexation. I would like to see the figures there plus there's other that is (inaudible). You better ask you Assessor about that.

Lacina: Well, the annexations will increase because as we...

Duffy: No, I mean there are other...

Lacina: As we force development into the cities they're going to have to annex more ground to expand and cover that density.

Duffy: Yes, but there is other in here too Steve, that they probably have lost, I don't like that word lost, it's just not the use has changed.

Lacina: Actually the use hasn't changed, the government body has changed. The ag land around North Liberty and Coralville when they had the annexation wars, technically, that one out of your inventory but remained to be farms if you drive out there today, and it's farm land.

Duffy: But, this might be some small acreage's that are taxed as residential, I noticed quite a few of the,

Moore: Well because you had questions, and there Zoning Commission had questions about that number 1,000. Rick and I have been looking for that, and the only thing that we quantified in the North Corridor Document, we were able to go through our records and data and for a 15 year period in 1980-1994 we identified approximately 3,400 acres that the County had rezoned from A1 to other uses in that 15 year period. Approximately 3,400 acres, but we could not account for annexations, and if the State Highway or the Federal Highway Commission went along and had the right way, like 218 going South down the Avenue of the Saints as they went in and purchased more right-of-away, we couldn't identify that, so I just wanted Rick and I have worked on that since your last reading since I discovered that, and so far that's the only thing we can get that we thought we had ever done in relationship to that, and we don't know where the 1,000 acres, but Jonathan just said that Karen would be the person to tell us that.

Jordahl: I think that the greater concern here is not the annexation piece of it, because we have little to say about that currently, but rather the part that we do have control over is what have we done, what have we rezoned for different purposes from agricultural to residential and we have that number perhaps we should substitute that number because that talks about what we're doing in land use planning.

Lacina: I agree because over 15 years what you're basically saying is we're looking at 200 acres a year that we are converting, I think that's more realistic to talk about what we have jurisdiction over versus if well Windsor ridge when they annexed that whole area, or some of these areas, they're picking up 2,3,4 hundred acres.

Moore: It is very appropriate that you have to (inaudible), but I think the statement about the total loss of agricultural acreage whether it's to cities's or where ever is an important issue to because that strengthening your argument for protecting ag ground. When you make policies to protect ag ground but not only are we removing some form agricultural uses but the cities are as well, but to use a number that we can't quantify (inaudible).

Jordahl: Let's get a defensible number, how about that. I see members of the public might want to talk to this too.

Duffy: Most of the building that was going on from 1980 to 1990, Big Grove, Jefferson, Newport, and Penn Townships. In 1983 117,769 acres, in 1980 and 1990 314,032 acres and that don't count a lot of that land that's been annexed plus the land is still there so this isn't, I think this figure is off.

Jordahl: Get us some better numbers OK? How about that.

Moore: We'll try.

Jordahl: We should offer the public the opportunity to have input. I saw that Reverend Welsh had his hand raised.

Welsh: Just one comment, I'm so frustrated by your discussions today, and I suggest that you might consider the following, and that is that in Thursday you have a motion to approve this plan, and that those of you have specific suggestions for modification, like the park, or changing this number, that you extent the other Board members to courtesy of having those suggestions in their hands by tomorrow noon, so that they can look at those and see, and then you can go down. From my sense of where you are is that Sally's suggestion in relation to eliminating the work park, I think you have some agreement on. I think contrary to your suggestion that under residential V1 be eliminated my reading is that most members of the Board feel that should that should be retained.

Jordahl: I'm OK with that.

Welsh: On your new V2, there is (inaudible) it's sort of 2, 2. I did hear an agreement for what Sally said as almost a rehearing of what you had as your intent in V2 from Steve saying that I can support that. I don't know that Sally can remember what she said at that point.

Jordahl: Basically meaning that the road requirements should cut both ways that if we have improved development someplace then we should be ready to step up to the plate and put the road there.

Welsh: I don't remember the exact wording, but I can remember that Sally made her statement and I heard Steve say I can support that principle. I can just tell you that, all I'm suggesting, and I hear Charlie say that he had some specific suggestions and I think it would help all of you in expediting your meeting on Thursday to have you extend the courtesy to each other by putting those things in writing.

Stutsman: I agree Bob.

Welsh: Let me say one other thing, I really appreciate the service that Steve and Joe had given to the Supervisors this year and I think it would be helpful to have any vote on this Land Use Plan (inaudible) and not (inaudible) I think that I am offering that as a friend of the (inaudible) and that's at least what I heard.

Lacina: Another proposal for us would be for us Thursday to drop the plan with the change of the word parks and sometime in march for the new Board to sit down and discuss the changes, because if we pass it and the new Board chooses not to follow it, then it's meaningless. Again, we can pass the base plan with one change, which I think that we're in agreement with, and then have a work session.

Duffy: I have a lot more and I can't write a half of a book about it. I wanted to talk out this (inaudible).

Lacina: Well, good input.

Jordahl: It's an ongoing discussion, boy.

Stutsman: It won't take us 3 years to revisit...

Jordahl: Any members of the public like to have a comment about the plan. Yes, Mr. Bell.

Clifford Bell: Well I have attended most of these meeting and I think that it ought to brought to attention that I think we've got a conflict of interest with 2 members of the Board of Supervisors, and since we're talking a lot of the taxpayer's dollars involved we're going to subsidize bicycle trails, or bicycle rooms, or bicycles of Iowa City or the trails of Iowa City or what not, when you brought up the items of the road it seems as though we just passed a way more expensive road in the north corridor than was necessary, we're talking about taxpayer's dollars then we're getting a conflict of interest. I kind of think 2 members of the Board of Supervisors ought to not vote on this publication.

Jordahl: I would like for you to clarify what road project and what expense you thought was reasonable and which Supervisors you are talking about.

Bell: The one with Coralville Lake where you put a 10 foot trail or bicycle path along side that going to be located along side of the road. Who's going to pay for this or are you going to charge the bicyclists a fee of $200 a year a license like you do the automobile between 38 1/2 cents a gallon you're spending tax pay dollars. A misappropriation of tax payer's dollars very simple. And there ain't a member of the bar association should have no problem that this is a conflict of interest. I think both you and the member who the other Board who wrote the grant for the trail should not vote on this issue, because that's a conflict of interest.

Jordahl: What's the conflict?

Bell: You are using tax payer dollars, misappropriation of tax payer's dollars to benefit an interest of your own group that you belong to.

Jordahl: Well I guess if you're talking about bicyclists I don't own a bicycle. I think we're talking about a public resource here. A lot of walking goes on out there too, people who live out there exercise on those roads, and these are all rural residents.

Bell: Are you prepared as the Board of Supervisors to subsidize, for instance people who golf, are you going to pay the greens fee for those people, that a small group there in (inaudible), what about people that bowl are you going to pay their bowling fees next year, same difference. You're subsidizing a small minority of the area but I want to also add that I think the Planning and Zoning have done a tremendous amount of work doing this for that they had to work with I think they have done a tremendous job in trying to get this appropriated.

Welsh: Jonathan I think the reason you're being questioned on a conflict of interest is one thing you all really can't stop that, I think that's the question that you'd have to refer to the County Attorney and ask him to determine whether or not here is a conflict of interest or not and advise you on that.

Stutsman: Well the only I would say is that I guess I'm not following the conflict of interest, but I think we have to realize that we are all elected by different constituent, and I think Board members are here because of people interests in wanting to put us here and to express our concerns and although Cliff you don't support bike trails I think it's safe to say that some Board members were elected here by people who have a lot of interest in bike trails and they wanted those interests to be represented up here too.

Bell: Well that's fine but if you can't get any kind of action to accumulate some tax dollars to take care of these trails to take care of these, well who's going to maintain them. You know, if you're talking about a minority a small percentage of the people, I'm not talking about a minority I'm talking about a small percentage of the tax payer population that (inaudible). We had the same thing up in River Ice, we put t a trail up through there several years ago, and I spent I don't know how many dollars we never used. Same difference. All you saying we're gonna upgrade and this road that you're putting in up there in order to widen it you not only got to enter the cost of maintaining a main road which is probably but how much land appropriation and how much widening of the road fencing and all of this you're probably talking, the figures in the media several hundred thousand to a million dollars, but tax payer's dollars for this addition on there that.

Jordahl: There is no additional width of the road at all to accommodate the bike trails, it was simple what was required with the should with the upgrading of the road, so the engineering to land acquisition and the engineering of the shoulder was done exclusively for the purposes of the road and the additional cost of the bike trail was simply for the surfacing of 8 feet of that shoulder.

Lacina: I think we did go back into some of the adjoining yards, I received some real hot telephone calls.

Stutsman: Right, but I don't think that the whole cost of that project wasn't just the bike trail, you know it included the other road.

Duffy: What is the other cost over that.

Stutsman: Mike would have to come on here and clarify that but it was my understanding that the road was going to be built and it was just the enhancement funds were going to help surface the bike trail. I don't think we can say that the only reason the road was built was for a bike trail, I think there was an opportunity to.

Duffy: You can't say it was for farming there's no farmers back in there that...

Stutsman: There's a lot of houses back in the Charlie, a lot of people live back in there too.

Jordahl: This really isn't the land use plan is it.

Lacina: Any other input.

Jordahl: Yes, public input on the land use plan.

Stutsman: I think R.J. had something else to bring up under other.

Moore: Outside of this if we have another underneath that comp plan.

Stutsman: No we don't it's under Board of Supervisors business, there's Other

Lacina: We have an other under Board.

(Continued in Part 4)