Government : Board of Supervisor Minutes 3/22/11

March 22, 2011

The Benton County Board of Supervisors met in regular adjourned session with Supervisors Buch, Vermedahl, and Sanders present. Chairman Buch called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

Moved by Vermedahl, seconded by Sanders, to approve the minutes of March 15, 2011. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Marc Greenlee, Land Use Administrator, and Dan Knipper of Hall and Hall Engineering, met with the board regarding a Replat of Lot 4 of Gardemann’s First Addition to Benton County. It was explained that Lot 4 currently consists of approximately 8 acres and the owner desires to divide off approximately one acre. Greenlee explained that the subdivision existed prior to the county’s subdivision ordinance and therefore all existing lots of pre-existing septic systems with shared wells. The new lot would share an existing well but would need its own septic system. The county’s current ordinance requires board approval for the Replat. The owner would like to divide the lot to allow his/her family to build a residence. Moved by Vermedahl, seconded by Sanders, that the requirements of Ordinance 26, as amended, are waived as the subdivision existed prior to passage of the original Ordinance, and further to adopt Resolution #11-18, REPLAT OF LOT ‘4’, GARDEMANN FIRST ADDITION TO BENTON COUNTY, IOWA. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Moved by Vermedahl, seconded by Sanders, to certify the Cost Allocation Plan prepared by Cost Advisory Services, Inc. for fiscal year 2010, and to direct the chair to sign the same. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Moved by Sanders, seconded by Vermedahl, to approve the annual report submitted by the Benton County Historic Preservation Commission for the 2010 calendar year, and to direct the chair to sign the same. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Moved by Vermedahl, seconded by Buch, to approve a quote submitted by West and Sons to paint the clerk’s office at a cost of $1,400.00 and install new window blinds with draw cords in the clerk’s east office (seven windows) at a cost not to exceed $749.00. Further to approve the quote submitted by West and Sons to construct boxes to cover air conditioning lines in the recorders, treasurer’s, and juvenile probation offices at a cost not to exceed $1,250.00. Voting aye were Vermedahl and Buch. Sanders voting nay. Motion carried.

Moved by Vermedahl, seconded by Sanders, to authorize the auditor to destroy closed session recordings and documents in accordance with Iowa law. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Amanda Downey of Wellmark provided an update to the supervisors on the ISAC/Wellmark health plan. Moved by Vermedahl, seconded by Sanders, to enter into the Renewal Group binder Agreement between Benton County and Wellmark for health insurance benefits for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Representatives of the Cedar Valley Ranch, Inc. met with the board regarding the daily rate for the Cedar Valley Ranch for fiscal year 2012. The current rate is $79.70 per day and the Ranch is requesting that the rate remain the same. Mary Williams, Social Services Director, is recommending a $68.73 per day rate. Supervisor Vermedahl stated that the issue arises with the CRIS board that is an organization that attempts to keep rates similar throughout the state. Vermedahl questioned that the costs as they did not reflect the annual rent payable by the Ranch. The Ranch paid for replacement of the air conditioning at the facility in exchange for rental payments to the county through June 30, 2016 being suspended. Vermedahl stated that there should be a reflection of those costs in the determination of a rate. Vermedahl also commented that the rates were being determined by a proposed budget, and he questioned the costs that were used in that budget. Lorene Spencer, Director of the Ranch, explained that the facility continues to strive to operate as efficiently as possible. Williams stated that she only had EideBailly’s report for actual costs for FY10 and the proposed budget to determine a rate. Vermedahl questioned why the payback on the $200,000 initial loan to the Ranch was not figured into the daily rate. Williams stated that she does not consider the $200,000, as it is not a part of the operating costs. Spencer stated that staffing has increased and she hopes to add more. The Ranch was able to payback approximately $65,000 in FY11 in accordance with the lease agreement. Jerry Petermeier, Cedar Valley Ranch Board member, stated that when using the CRIS rate, it must be considered that Benton County only has five clients residing there with another 34 clients from other counties. Petermeier stated that if the CRIS rate is too low, then Benton County ultimately subsidizes the other counties because the Ranch isn’t able to generate adequate income. The current rate is right in the middle of the range when considering surrounding facilities. The Ranch at one time did not have very many clients and the Ranch had to reduce the rate in order to attract more clients. The Ranch’s client numbers increased significantly as a result. The Ranch has maintained the number of clients because of the services being offered not because of the rate. Petermeier stated that the Ranch is asking that the rate remain the same as the Ranch continues to stabilize their operation. Supervisor Buch stated he understood that the numbers had to be maintained in order to have the facility operate and did not see a problem with the facility making a little more. Buch stated that he understood that Williams would not agree but he believed that it was better to have adequate funds to operate. Williams stated that she is only doing her job. Williams questioned if the Ranch would be changing their status from non-profit to profit. Spencer stated that if the rate were reduced Benton County would save approximately $15,000 per year while the Ranch would lose about $108,000 from other counties. Supervisor Sanders stated that a non-profit is allowed to make money to an extent. Williams stated that she uses the report from EideBailly, the firm auditing the Cedar Valley Ranch. Vermedahl questioned if the EideBailly report reflected the money the Ranch spent towards the air conditioning that was done in lieu of rent as was told that it did not. Williams stated that if the board wants to negotiate the rate then they should drop out of the CRIS agreement, and the board could negotiate the rate each year instead of Williams. Vermedahl questioned what the past rates versus the costs of the Ranch over the past. Williams stated that one year the rate was higher than the costs and the next year the rate was less than the costs. Vermedahl stated that he did not like to get involved in setting the rate but also did not believe the county should not be giving services away. Moved by Vermedahl, seconded by Sanders, to leave the rate at $79.70 for FY12, and that in the future the Ranch and Williams should work together to negotiate rates. Williams stated that she has worked every year with the Ranch to negotiate the rate and then the Ranch comes to the Board and the Board overrides the rate. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Jerry Petermeier, Construction Coordinator, provided an update on the construction progress of the new law enforcement center.

Moved by Sanders, seconded by Vermedahl, to approve checks numbered 127713 through 128020, and ACH deposits numbered 10729 through 10835, for payment. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

The board met with County Engineer Myron Parizek for the purposes of an informal performance review. Parizek requested that the board go into closed session. Moved by Sanders, seconded by Vermedahl, to enter into closed session at the request of Myron Parizek, pursuant to Iowa Code 21.5(1)i. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried at 11:55 p.m.

Moved by Sanders, seconded by Vermedahl, to return to open session. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried at 12:50 p.m.

Moved by Vermedahl, seconded by Sanders, to direct the engineer to present a plan to the board addressing hiring issues, recycling, landfill, Atkins project, and Oak Grove project, on March 29, 2011, for board consideration. The issues are to be revisited each week until further notice. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

No action was taken on setting the FY12 salary for the county engineer.

The board recessed at 1:00 p.m.

The board was reconvened at 6:30 p.m. in the basement of the courthouse for the purposes of meeting with the zoning commission. Supervisors Buch, Vermedahl, and Sanders were present. Chairman Buch reconvened the meeting at 6:36 p.m.

Members of the zoning commission present were: Nancy Jensen, Judi Hertle, Diane Pickart, Larry Koster, Renae Becker, Dan Kaestner, and Larry Beatty. Absent: Jim Hodgson and Steve Thompson.

Other persons present: Marc Greenlee, Land Use Administrator, Barbara Greenlee, and Steve Speidel.

Supervisor Buch called for nominations for zoning commission chair: Moved by Larry Koster, seconded by Dan Kaestner, to nominate Steve Thompson as board chair. Zoning commission vote: all ayes: Motion carried.

Moved by Larry Beatty, seconded by Larry Koster, to nominate Dan Kaestner as vice-chair. All zoning members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Moved by Larry Beatty, seconded by Judi Hertle, to nominate Nancy Jensen as secretary. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Zoning Commission meeting followed. Vice Chair Kaestner presided over the zoning commission meeting.

Marc Greenlee presented a review of the existing county ordinances, including the history and the basis for their development. Greenlee also reviewed the legal requirements and responsibilities for the zoning commission – stating that the zoning commission meets and ultimately makes recommendations to the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors then acts on those recommendations. Greenlee stated that the zoning commission has met over the years and has spent time reviewing the comprehensive plan, land use ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and specifically the development of a LESA system (land evaluation and site assessment). The zoning commission made recommendations in 2008; however the flood of 2008 caused this issue to take a back seat. Greenlee explained that Benton County in 1986 adopted an Agricultural Land Use Preservation Ordinance (the Ordinance) and Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). In 1994 the zoning commission convened to review the Ordinance and the Plan with the Plan remaining in place and minor changes made to the ordinance. In 1995 the county adopted a subdivision ordinance to address the increased subdivision of land to provide an orderly process. In 1999 the county was under significant development pressure and the county’s subdivision ordinance was reviewed. In 2000 the subdivision ordinance underwent major changes requiring subdivisions on hard surfaced roads, central water, and central sewer. Procedures were changed as to day-to-day decisions and a subdivision was defined as three or more divisions in a 40-acre tract. Since 2000 there have not been many subdivision proposals presented, adding that there has been a subdivision plat submitted for six lots that was located on a hard surfaced road, with a variance requested to the central sewer system, which was ultimately denied by the Board of Supervisors. Another subdivision plat was submitted containing four lots, with one pre-existing and creating three new lots, which was approved and is still in place.

Kaestner asked if the possibility of adopting the LESA was over. Greenlee stated that the LESA was not necessarily a dead option. The map showing where development could occur was shown when using the LESA plan proposed in 2008, which indicated that development would occur primarily in the flood plains. Vermedahl stated that the board had asked ECICOG to tweak the criteria and prepare a new map; however a new map was never received. Vermedahl stated that the county has not had many issues with the current land use ordinance as far as changes taking place. Supervisor Sanders commented that a question was what the county wanted for “density” in the rural area. Supervisor Buch added that the new census data shows a decline in population in the western part of the county. Larry Beatty stated that the old zoning commission came to the consensus that growth would have to occur on high CSR ground due to the proximity of services, but didn’t want residential developments to be spattered throughout the county with a salt and pepper effect of housing and agriculture. Supervisor Buch voiced a concern about EPA rules and dust pollution. Beatty commented that Jasper County uses a form that would prevent people from suing agricultural operations when developing in the rural areas. Marc Greenlee stated that assumptions were made in the past that the growth near cities would be able to connect to the city’s infrastructure; however some cities may not be able to handle the growth with their current systems. Greenlee concurred with Vermedahl in that people are finding places to build homes on less productive land. Greenlee stated that the supervisors have expressed that a farm use include land in the conservation reserve program. Greenlee added that his primary concern was with the subdivision ordinance and the central water and central sewer systems. Greenlee stated that the subdivision ordinance doesn’t address geothermal wells and geothermal pumps. The subdivision ordinance implies that one central well is to be utilized, but it is implied that it is a drinking well. Greenlee reported that the county attorney stressed that the ordinance needed to be defined better. Greenlee stated that a central drinking type well could be required, but other wells could be drilled for geothermal systems or heat pump systems. Greenlee also stated that separation distance requirements between wells and potential sources of contamination needed to addressed. Greenlee also suggested that developers be required to obtain an engineering review if more than one drinking type well was to be installed. Greenlee stated he has received complaints that the central sewer treatment requirement is very restrictive and that the ordinance needs to be brought up to date to meet state code relative to sewage systems.

Kaestner questioned the potential for pollution for geothermal systems that pump water out and then dump it back into another well. Steve Speidel, a member of the public, responded that wells that are installed with full grout would not pose a pollution threat and that the county’s regulations needed to address the grouting of wells.

Auditor Jill Marlow stated that there were other issues that needed to be addressed, including (but not limited to) set back requirements for non-like uses, fencing, and definitions about what divisions of land would be subject to the subdivision ordinance.

The zoning commission then discussed future commission meetings.

Moved by Sanders, seconded by Vermedahl, to adjourn. All members voting aye thereon. Motion carried at 7:55 p.m.

_______________________________

Ronald Buch, Chairman

ATTEST: _________________________________

Jill Marlow, Auditor