MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 12 AND 14, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Jordahl called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:06 a.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, and Sally Stutsman.
Jordahl: Calling to order the informal meeting of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, January 12, 1999, for those of us who haven't had practice for saying 9 yet. Review of the formal minutes of January 7th available to Board Members on the "I" drive if you haven't had a chance to see those yet, we'll be voting those on Thursday. Let's see here we don't have Mary Katherine Wallace here.
Lehman: She just walked in.
SENIOR center COMMISSION MEMBER MARY KATHRYN WALLACE: SENIOR CENTER UPDATE
Jordahl: Here we go. Good Morning. You're up. A moment to take your coat off and get comfortable here. So, once again introducing Mary Katherine Wallace of the Senior Center Commission.
Senior Center Commission Member Mary Kathryn Wallace: Good morning, and happy new year, to all of you, from us. I would like to report that at our last meeting we elected officers for the Senior Center Commission. Chair is Terry Miller Chate, Vice Chair is Larry Pugh who is a Johnson County Appointee, and I will be the Secretary for this coming year. New appointees to the Commission, and we are now fully complete, and we beg in with our full Board in January. From the City are Jay Honahan, and Bill Kelly and we thank you very much for the re-appointment of Joanne Hora. Currently we are working on the budget and that is an ongoing process right now. I would like to report that the Washington Street entrance has been completed. The parts are in and the weather cooperated, so we got that and it's a nice new entrance with one large main door that opens on Washington Street.
Jordahl: Regarding the budget is that a very different matter this year with the construction of the parking ramp impending.
Wallace: Not really. Yes and no, it's factored in, but its not. It's just another piece of the puzzle.
Jordahl: I'm wondering about our expected contribution to the Senior Center. I don't recall the specific discussion about that, do we anticipate a significant increase.
Wallace: Well, we haven't heard back from the Committee everything is on the board, so to speak, and drawing, and we've not heard. We've heard a range of numbers and no plan has been settled on yet.
Stutsman: It's a percentage of the operating budget, isn't it Carol. It's a contract so we'll get a umber basically, is what it amount to.
Peters: Yes, and it's 80, 20. 20 from Johnson County
Jordahl: Right, but the construction of the ramp is a separate issue from the operating expenses.
Stutsman: Right, we're not involved with any Capitol Projects in that.
Wallace: Right.
Stutsman: With the Senior Center or the Libraries, we just deal with operating budgets.
Jordahl: But the operating budget is likely to see and increase we just don't know what.
Stutsman: Would there be additional staff or anything, or would there be a significant...
Wallace: There is a recommendation for some staff, but I don't know whether it will occur. Everything's fluid, right now. On that topic, on our last meeting, we were asked by the Parking Ramp Committee to put forth some recommendations that we would like for the Parking Ramp, and the Senior Center Commission, I would summarize, has 3 basic recommendations that went to that Committee. We are recommending additional space in the ramp. They are thinking of some room space above the shops that will be there, and this is really the only viable space for growth for the Senior Center. For example the Band, the New Horizons Band, we have to take things down and put them up again, and if we had a larger space that would facilitate participation in the Senior Center. Currently we're using all the space that we have, and because it is a historical building, we're very, limited. So where the Senior population will be growing, our recommendation is for an additional large room, and space in the parking ramp. We also recommended a 2nd level overpass, to connect the parking ramp and the Senior Center, and that we will be renting hours of space rather than actual spaces and I'm not sure how all of this will go out, but it's on a budget that we're going to have identification with this and I'm not sure how this is going to look. But there won't be, but if we have, which we do, a maximum time over the lunch hour, if we're renting X number hours of space, and then its low after that, then we're just paying for a space that we're renting, rather than an actual parking space that will remain empty, and I'm not sure how that's going to work out. But, at the meeting it all seems like that's the way to go and that we will keep track of who was using it, and how that will work. So, our next meeting is next week and I think we'll have more information at that time, but last month those were our 3 recommendations about the parking ramp.
Jordahl: In terms of our budget process that we're involved in right now. We're looking in to the fiscal year 2000 starting in July and I'm wondering if we're going to see any expanded staff for example, if that's a discussion for the year 2000, or if that's a discussion for 2001.
Stutsman: Jonathan I wonder if the questions would be better directed to Linda Kopping than Mary Katherine.
Wallace: They would be, but I will relay that this issue was raised and we will get back to you on the discussion for that.
Jordahl: OK, thank you.
Wallace: We will have a repeat of a program that is being offered, our programs in January, Medicare Plus Choice, it will be on Wednesday from January the 13th from 10:30-12:30. We've had to turn away over 100 people, so we will be having the program in a larger space for February, and I don't have the details for that, but that will be coming out. We're very positive that 1999 will be a successful year at the Senior Center. We're very pleased that we have an excellent Commission, and Council of Elders, and Staff and enthusiastic participants. Again I would like thank you for your allowing me to represent you as the Senior Center Commissioner, and I will take back to Linda your raising the issue of budget and your part and what will be the year 1999, and year 2000, and 2001 and we'll get back to you on that.
Jordahl: Well, I can give her a call myself too.
Wallace: But I'll seeing her at a meeting later today, so I can let her know that a call will be coming, or would you like her to phone you. How would you like that to be.
Jordahl: That's fine, if you want to mention it that's fine.
Wallace: I will mention it.
Jordahl: And I'll give her a call myself. Thank you.
Wallace: Any other questions.
Duffy: I would like to say again, and I know the rest of the Supervisors feel the same, and on this cold morning, that you're down here again reporting on what went on, and I'm sure we appreciate that.
Jordahl: Alright item 4 on the agenda is business from the County Engineer, I see Mike Gardner and Al Miller are here this morning. Discussion regarding Iowa Department of Transportation agreement for Federal-Aid Surface Transportation Program Project STP-S-52(48)--5E-52.
County Engineer Mike Gardner: Morning, these are the agreements that we need to enter into with the DOT in order to get the Federal Funding from the STP T21 Funds, and this first project is the IWV road paving. We did the road grating the summer before last and we're planning to do the paving this year, it's actually in the February letting. So, we just need to get the agreement signed with the DOT so we can get the funding as the project progresses.
Jordahl: Sounds like we better do that.
Stutsman: There was this time that me and Mike were out looking at zonings on IWV, and thought, gee are they going to pave this, and now I see we're on track to do that.
Duffy: And I hope it don't rain.
Jordahl: OK, I suppose we'll do the next item then. It looks similar.
Gardner: Well. It's basically the same thing. It's the agreement we'd enter in to, to do the asphalt overlay on the 4 miles of road north of Lone Tree, X-14 Wapsi Avenue that we put the shoulders on this past summer and re-grated the (Inaudible) slopes and so forth, and we're going to Federal Funding, now this summer and put an overlay on it and shoulders, granular shoulder to bring that to (Inaudible).
Jordahl: So the basic road surface was then sufficient to just go with an overlay.
Gardner: Yes
Stutsman: I've heard a lot of positive comments on this road being upgraded or fixed or whatever.
Gardner: We've got a lot of good feedback on it too, once the project was completed everybody seems to be really happy with the final product.
Jordahl: The question of traffic counts that surfaced in out 5 year discussion is a pretty interesting piece on a philosophical level, this is apart of the need to provide a transportation grid County wide. It may not be the most heavily traveled road, but it might be some kind of a source of direct transportation from a City to another City. I mean, it's an interesting balancing act that you perform.
Gardner: This was one of them that we were able to go ahead and utilize some of the previous funding that we had put into it for the paving, and just upgrade it, and bring it up to a better standard of road, and still maintain some of the funding that we put into it earlier, so it worked out good.
Duffy: So this is probably going to be about next June.
Gardner: Sometime this summer, it's in the February letting, DOT letting. It's schedule for completion this summer depending on what contractor gets it and what their scheduling is.
Duffy: Probably should explain that through ISTEA agreements that it's Federal Gas Tax dollars, most of it, that we get for something like that.
Stutsman: Does that mean this road is going to be shut down for most of the summer or can you do this with little...
Gardner: This will done with pilot cars and flaggers
Stutsman: Alright, so the road will stay open
Duffy: How long do you think it would take if there was good weather.
Gardner: 2 full weeks.
Duffy: Then we're going to stripe it too. That's going to be a nice road.
Jordahl: We all like to see shoulders developing on the Secondary Road systems. I feel a lot better out there.
Gardner: I'll have these put on the agenda for Thursday.
Jordahl: Great, anything else you'd like to bring up under other.
Gardner: That's it.
Jordahl: Thank you both.
TOM WEGMAN: PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ALIGNMENT DISCUSSION
Jordahl: Item 5 on the agenda, business from Tom Wegman, good morning Tom, concerning the Prairie Du Chien Road Alignment.
Tom Wegman: I brought a copy, but you've seen the realignment on the map, right? I've had 2 meetings with the 2 people who were just here.
Jordahl: They're still behind you, just for reference. Thanks for staying on.
Wegman: And, I've been calling into the County Secondary Roads Department for 4 years now wondering when this was going to change, because when it changes we have a secondary access from Prairie View Estates and it will let us develop the rest on the land that we have, and I must say that I was absolutely shocked, in talking to these 2 people, to find out that we're not going to be allowed access to the road that is going to be the realigned Prairie Du Chien. Because they say they couldn't see any of the past documents that we had any access to that road, and I'll counter that with we have an easement dated 13th of December, 1989 from the Lundquist's which is now the McBrasky property to enter that road. Secondly, at one point, and I would have to really think back (inaudible) and we asked for access for the road and were denied by the County because we came out of the curve and it was an unsafe area to come out, and the county denied us access. So, for those 2 reason I say that we do have access to that road. In the 2nd meeting Mike Gardner and Al Miller said that the solution to get the MacBrides and what is now the McBrasky property, they were going to vacate the west side of the road, and not even use the east side of the road, except there is one small part in there, and that is to get MacBride out they're going to have to cross the (inaudible) half of that road. So, at this point they are vacating part of the east side of that road too, so my contingent is, is that if you're going to vacate part of that east road, why not leave the entire road, let us come out there, have it be our secondary access and that we can get to the new road, and I guess that I want for your consideration. I really don't think that this is the end from what I'm hearing from Mike Gardner and Al Miller, because I think that the City of Iowa City is going to get involved in this, and I've already contacted Karen Franklin, Pat White is going to get into this, you obviously going to get into it, our attorney's going to get into it, and MMS is going to get into it. So, I think we're going to have a lot of people to talk about this. Do you have any questions, that's all I have to say.
Jordahl: I do, do any other Board Members have any question.
Stutsman: Go ahead.
Jordahl: You state that you have an easement through Lundquist/McBrasky's property and I don't dispute that, and I've talked to both Al and Mike about this, and the notion that I get from this is yes, you have an easement through the Lundquist property to the existing alignment of Prairie Du Chien Road and the problem is that you haven't been allowed to access onto Prairie Du Chien Road, and please Mike and Al jump in when I go astray on the summary here, you haven't been allowed to access that road because of the corner and for the same reason that you haven't been allowed to access Prairie Du Chien Road is the reason that we're moving Prairie Du Chien Road, so that we have a safer corner there. The corners a problem we're fixing, that problem and that's one piece of the story. The other piece of the story is in fixing that problem is in fixing that corner we are vacating Prairie Du Chien Road and so that will no longer be a County Road it will revert, its my understanding, to the ownership of the property owners from whom the right of way easement was originally purchased, or to those properties, even if they are no the same people owning them. So, the question of leaving the road there, Mike and Al, are we leaving the road surface there? Or, are we going to scarify the road surface in abandoning it.
Gardner: That's still up in the air. We still haven't solved all of the problems yet. And what Tom was saying was, the other day, as far as MacBride's access that is proposal we have, and that's what we were going to go a head and peruse because we had to get these plans in, in order to make our deadlines, and since we hadn't been able to get all of these issues cleared up, to keep moving, so that's how we were going to proceed. In that scenario, yes we're going to have to leave some surface on the roadway.
Stutsman: I guess my question is to Ann of the County Attorney's office and to Al and to Mike. What is our role in providing access, because if I am thinking correctly, there is access to this property so it isn't landlocked.
Assistant County Attorney Ann Lahey: I think the key is, what Mr. Wegman said is secondary access, we have no legal responsibility. The access for the easement will not provide under like zoning and subdivision requirements enough access to that property anyway.
Stutsman: What do you mean enough access?
Lahey: I mean it wouldn't be wide enough to accommodate as many lots, even the existing ones, any way, I think besides the (Inaudible), that's my understanding.
Jordahl: The width of the access is one thing, because I have been trying to boil this problem down and in my mind, it seems like the road is moving. If we were moving the road ten feet in stead of as far as we are, in order to get to that road, you would have to negotiate with your neighbor about that 10 feet. It seems reasonable. You have an agreement to go as far as you have to go now, but you don't have agreement, but you don't have agreement that gets to that 10 away alignment. The fact that we're moving the road a quarter of a mile or something, hasn't changes the idea that you have to negotiate with the neighbors to get that access that you want through there. I think where this thing sort of turns, or seems to get tangled up, is I'm perceiving it is the idea that right now we have a public road, a public way there, and you want to use the existing public way to get out to the new alignment of Prairie Du Chien Road and in our normal process of moving a road, realigning a road, we don't maintain the abandoned portion of the road. We get rid of that, we give it back to the original property owners and you know, move the road to another place. So that whole power of Imminent Domain or whatever is behind this, you know applies to that road in the new location, but we give the property in the old location. So that you're asking us to do something other than what we would normally do, I think.
Wegmen: But you're not giving it all back, you're leaving the west side of that road to let the MacBrides and the McBrasky's out, so at this point you are not giving it all back
Stutsman: My understanding, Mike, was that's going to vacated too.
Gardner: That's what we're hoping if we can get the to work out.
Stutsman: We would vacate that whole road, that there would just be no kind of responsibility for that road at all. That it would just basically be somebody's driveway or access and that...
Wegman: That's fine, that's what I'm asking just leave the whole road rather than the west half. You're going to have to leave part of east half anyway for MacBride to get out so why not leave the entire road out there.
Stutsman: When you're talking about the east half what does that mean, the north end of it?
Wegman: The road is going north and the west half belongs to the Langs and the Coles the east half belongs to the Vogels, and their plan at this moment is to leave the west half, the Lang and Cole portion of that road and vacate it but leave it there for the MacBride and the McBrasky's the have access. MacBride's has to have access he lives there, so all I', asking is, leave the entire road. If you going to leave half the road, why not leave the entire road and vacate it. I'll maintain it, I'll get the snow off of it, all I'm asking is for the road to be there. Karen Franklin says we cannot access that until we have the entire road.
Jordahl: When you're talking about the east half of the road I'm confused if you're talking about drawing a line down the center of the road...
Wegman: That's how it is right now, half of it belongs to the Vogels, and half of it belongs to the Lang and Coles right down the center of the road is where it exists at this point.
Jordahl: So, you are talking about going down the middle of the line here, and Mike, Al.
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller: There's just one thing I want to make clear is that we never said in any part of any negotiation that we were going to deny him access, all we said is the we feel it's your responsibility to negotiate with your neighbors to get yourself out.
Jordahl: I'm just trying to get a fact out on the table here about our plans for vacating the road. Are we going to vacate the whole right away of the road?
Stutsman: The whole road, both the east and west side? We're just going to get out of that road complete?
Miller: That's our plan. The physical road itself could be left in for Mr. Wegman to use although it would be owned by someone other than us, that he's going to have to be able to negotiate with it be able to use it.
Stutsman: That's what it sounds like to me is that he's going to have, if you want to keep that road open you're going to have to deal with the landowners and not the with the County.
Wegman: Is MacBride going to have to negotiate with the Cole's and the Lang's.
Miller: We are going to have to negotiate with both of those to get MacBride out because they have access now and we have to provide them access. If we vacate that road it would have to have a provision saying that MacBride has an access easement across that property to get him out, and if that's the case, if that's what we end up doing it's just providing MacBride a drive, we would provide him exactly that, a drive to his driveway and vacate the property giving him an access easement across Cole's property when we vacate it.
Stutsman: So basically we have a legal obligation to MacBride but we don't to Wegman and Oaks as far as access and getting out of that property.
Miller: That's correct.
Jordahl: But in practical terms what is the road surface look like under this proposed MacBride access, I mean are you saying we are kind of drawing this same line down the middle of the road that Mr. Wegman is talking about, and then their rights are going to be on the half of the road from the middle line across the shoulder or something like that.
Miller: If that would be the case, then we would just build a drive for MacBride, our plan is to reclaim the existing surface, build then a 20 foot wide driveway like we build every other drive in the County, and put rock on it, and that would be his to maintain.
Stutsman: OK.
Wegman: And also you're going to have to deal with the Vogels just a little bit right.
Miller: Well we own 66 foot right of way, if the Vogel's would be, that's another part of the negotiation, if they're OK with it, yes it wold probably be the best situation if you split it down the middle, if they aren't OK with it, we still have 33 foot on the Cole property which is basically a little remnant that we're cutting through to build the new alignment that they have all kind of said that they really don't want to, or they are going to be agreeable to what we want to do. We have 32 foot right of way to get a 20 foot drive in for MacBride and (inaudible) we can do that if that's our last resort.
Wegman: Well as a practical matter we've been waiting god how many years to get out of there, why can't you just do something and vacate the entire road and just let it sit there and we will maintain it and we'll get the snow off of it, but just give us a double road. The City will not let us move out unless we have a double road.
Miller: As a part of our negotiation with all of the people that are out there, they have all said that the Cole's, Langs, and the Vogels, and MacBrides have all said that we would be willing to sell Mr. Wegman our part of the existing County right away for him to get out. The County could existing road in and could use it connect it up to the new alignment, the problem is that Mr. Wegman has to deal with the neighbors and that's all we're saying.
Lahey: We can't give the road or sell it to Mr. Wegman because it's not ours to do that with, it's only ours to vacate.
Lehman: We can't pass an easement on them either. It's not ours to do that, they need to negotiate with the land owners themselves. I have a question. I guess, for the City, Karen Franklin, does that meet your specs to let them do that with the width of the road? Does the surface need to be improve, we're going to be out of picture here but I don't want to mislead Mr. Wegman here.
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Administrator Karen Franklin: We have always looked at it as if Wegman and Oaks could get out to Prairie Du Chien and we didn't have the problem with the curve of the hill that that would be an appropriate access, so I don't think that it was ever anticipated that Prairie Du Chien Road and it's current alignment would be upgraded in any way in order to provide the necessary secondary access, and I have not seen the realignment of Prairie Du Chien, but I'm assuming that from the Searle St. north it would connect to realignment.
Jordahl: Tom, could she see that?
Wegman: Yes.
Franklin: So this would be taken out, it would be obliterated, I'm talking about the hill and the curve, and then Searle Street could connect in here and then you could come up and this would T into the.
Franklin: Seal Coat. If the surface that's there is kept in place and is maintained which I'm assuming that would be the private property opener's obligation, if that's kept in place and maintained, that should serve as adequate access to get out of Prairie View Estates as a secondary access, but it would require the full 2 lanes that are there now.
Lehman: OK, it sounds like it boils down to, well I don't what time they need to be working with the current land owners who actually own the road to renegotiate so it's your following in on our vacancies, is that kind of what it sounds like?
Miller: That's really the sole purpose of why we have had these last meetings is to get together with the land owner's and they all gave me a verbal, we I wouldn't speak for them but they've all said that we would be agreeable to sell the existing part of the right away to Mr. Wegman so that we can make this thing happen.
Wegman: Well I only know of 2 of those and everybody said that the Vogels are very hard to deal with and I don't know how to get a hold of them.
Miller: I talked to, they're all brothers and sisters, and I believe that there are 5 of them that are involved, and I talked to one of the sisters Friday, one of the brothers on Saturday and they both said that they're going to be getting together between the 5 of them, and they both said that they would be agreeable to sell the property to Mr. Wegman, but one of the things that they said they've had some negotiations with Wegman and Oaks before and for some reason it didn't work out, on this subject.
Gardner: And another reason that we've had this meeting is not necessarily to go to this alignment we were willing to let them work amongst themselves and find an alignment that was agreeable to everybody and serve everybody's interest and so we basically locked into this ourselves at this point just so that we can proceed with our design and keep the project on line. We're still open, if they want to come up with something different with that, we can go back and make some changes as we go but we couldn't sit still any longer.
Miller: Another thing also is that this alignment that we've been talking about today seems to make the most sense we're were at totally. Talking with Steve Lee who manages the Lang property there has also been some discussion between and the Cole's, and Dubrowski's about some land changing hands there, and if one of the scenarios works out there, they would prefer an access that runs a little closer to what we originally proposed whether that's going o happen or not I don't know, but it may be a possibility at that time that Searle Street could maybe cut kind of cross country like we had originally looked at. But, in that case, it's still going to be Mr. Wegman's responsibility to purchase that right away that he needs to get out there and they would just agree to let the road go out there and there would be some mutual benefits that some of their development ideas would connect to Searle Street. But, like I say this is all kind of up in the air, this existing alignment seems to be the best we can go with right now.
Jordahl: OK, so I think the difference of opinion in extent there is for me boils down to the question that the right of way the we have for the road versus the road surface which is currently there, but is currently proposed to be scarified and changed into something else, or possibly moved to a different place and the right of way issue is the right of way for Prairie Du Chien Road which we would be surrendering and moving the road and obtaining other right of way for the same road, and we don't propose to then create 2 roads out of this one road, or rather to vacate this road. So the question then becomes a matter not of us leaving this road open for the secondary access for you subdivision but would be vacating this road and then it would be a matter for you to negotiate with your neighbors about getting an easement through their property which we would have returned the rights for to them, and then it sounds like the first the point that you raised about no being allowed to access realigned road, it sounds like you probably would be allowed the realigned road once the proper right of way easement is in place. I mean I guess I'm not guaranteeing that, but I'm hearing the affirmation to that general effect and Mike's nodding his head back there. So, it sounds like question of access to Prairie Du Chien Road may not be a problem it's more just a question of talking to your neighbors.
Stutsman: I think that's what I am coming to the conclusion that the County doesn't have a role in providing you the access, that's something that you'll have to work out with your neighbors and we're realigning the road to make it safer and that our obligation will be to vacate the road and that you'll just have to work it out among the adjoining property owners how you want to develop that 2nd access.
Jordahl: But, in a way this is providing you with that secondary access in as much as under the existing alignment of the road it hasn't been permitted because of the problem with the danger of that corner, and now we're fixing that corner so it becomes possible for you to have that secondary access and additionally develop the property that you have. So, what the County is doing is accruing to your benefit in that way in getting that secondary access. it's just that there is a piece of negotiation that you still have to do to make that happen, sounds like.
Duffy: Jonathan, I think we should do all we can resolve this problem privately and County Government. When we decided to realign that Prairie Du Chien Road there was 3 different options the west option the center option and the east option. We decided to go with the west option, but it really kind of separates your property more and if it had been in the center even east, it looks to me like DEAN Oaks property that's back in there, some of these vehicles would probably go out a if different way maybe, but I could be wrong on that so I think that maybe the County should help negotiate so really it's the most feasible way to your property and that's what we have to think of if that's what you think it is, or others, so I think we just better see if we could get together, I feel that maybe being as maybe we changed the road sure we could do this the County if we wanted to and say hey this is your business here because we changed this, and I got the little problem of that too. I think it can be worked out so maybe, and Lahey is good at this and so is Mike maybe we can figure out something so.
Lehman: I would think looking at the map that if this road is keep open for your purposes that it may also serve possibly Cole's if they retain a portion of the ground and maybe Vogels to maybe use that as a entrance on to this road and maybe just keep the one common which would be improved Old Prairie Du Chien Section onto New Prairie Du Chien rather than have their driveway, if they decide to develop just on down the road to just to be in quite a few year, but it may, and you need to point out to them, that it should be in their benefit to have this road kept in a nice form for them to access it from different portions of their property, so I think it would be a mutual benefit there to point that out to them too.
Jordahl: There are ways for you to negotiate this to make sense probably to all of the neighbors, so is there anything else that needs to be brought out in this discussion that hasn't. Anne, or Karen.
Miller: The only thing I wanted to make sure of too is that I'm assuming that the City is going to have some Geometric Requirements for this drive, and for this access and I just wanted to make sure that if we go with the existing alignment that everybody knows what the Geometric Requirements are going to be as far them looking up.
Franklin: OK.
Miller: As far as minimum radius and that type of stuff, I don't feel it's going to be our responsibility if this situation happens it's somewhat Mr. Wegman is going to have to realize.
Stutsman: But, it's good to know up front what the expectations are.
Miller: Right, I just want to make sure, because I don't want to get down to the end and then have the City say well you don't have enough room to make the Geometrics work and it's not going to work.
Jordahl: All right so that's then a conversation that Mr. Wegman should have with the City of Iowa City.
Miller: The City and his engineer.
Lehman: So you're saying his easement, if he wants to use that now is at a hard right turn and he's going to have to, injury wise they're going to need to know that this isn't going to be a dangerous turn in the future.
Miller: He just needs to meet the City's standard.
Stutsman: Right.
Jordahl: OK, very good, thank you all for coming in it sounds like we got a little clarity on the picture now. If there's problems let us know.