MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 22, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
County Engineer Greg Parker: 2008-2012 Five-Year Road Construction Program and Right-of-Way Needs Map 1
Jay Speckeen: Real Estate Tax Late Interest Fee Assessment.................................................. 2
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia and Juvenile Court Supervisor Lloyd Smith: Planning for the Future Needs for Juvenile Detention In Johnson County................................................................................ 4
Discussion: Sheriff’s Contracts for the Provision of Law Enforcement Services to the Towns of Shueyville and Lone Tree....................................................................................................................................... 6
Discussion: Appointments to the Johnson County Judicial Magistrates Commission for Unexpired Terms Ending December 31, 2008........................................................................................................................... 6
Discussion: Appointment to the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending December 31, 2008........................................................................................................... 7
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors................................................................. 7
Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:48 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
County Engineer Greg Parker said that they are looking to get the 5-Year Road Plan approved so that staff can have the information to the Department of Transportation by on or before April 15, 2006. As part of the plan, they always renew their right-of-way dedication map, and this is also on the website. Staff is not aware of any comments from the public that have come to the office. The projects are evenly spaced throughout the County. Secondary Roads staff recommends approval of the 5-Year Road Plan as they have presented it to the Board and to residents.
Stutsman said that another County Engineer in Des Moines was thinking about borrowing ahead. She asked if he was familiar with that. Parker said that Johnson County has not done that. Parker clarified that the Plan is a static document at the time of approval but that it can be modified based on changes in funding. Harney asked what the effect of the transportation dollar changes might be. Parker said the funding available to them always changes whenever congress looks at renewal. Funding distribution and availability change. Construction costs are going up close to 30% annually over the last several years, whereas the Road Use Tax Funds are maintaining about a 5% increase.
Neuzil said that in FY 08, the major projects including Highway 965 to Swisher could use some explanation for the public. Parker said that in FY 08, the year begins on July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. The first project they have is improvement to Derby Avenue at 120th Street. The second is a grade and pave project at 540th Street. The rehabilitation projects include 500th Street, Iowa County Line to the Angle Road, Lower Old Highway 6, Curtis Bridge Road, Highway 965 widening and drains, and Highway 965 pavement rehab and paved shoulders. They also have 120th pavement rehab and shoulders from Highway 965 east to the east right-of-way of Highway 80. They have a bridge replacement on Cosgrove Road south of Highway 1.
Meyers said that the Curtis Bridge Road repavement will be paid for in part by $100,000 given to the County by the developer there. Parker agreed. Secondary Roads would recommend approving that payment from the developer. It would be included as part of the developer’s agreement. Meyers asked about the 120th Street project. Parker said that there are two. One goes from Highway 965 east to Interstate 380. Meyers said it doesn’t really cover the area on 120th by Shueyville that has been a problem for a while. Parker said they have had several meetings with the City who needs to give an indication from a planning standpoint of what they would like to see there. He said the City has jurisdiction from the bank east past Curtis Bridge Road. Meyers said the bridge over Cosgrove Road is the one that was destroyed in the vehicle accident earlier this winter. R. Sullivan said that Oakdale Boulevard is part of the plan. Parker said that is right for FY 09. That is the planning tool at this time. They will hopefully be procuring additional funds to help with that. They will be working with the City of Coralville on this. Stutsman said that the Board will formally approve the 5-Year Road Plan next week. Parker agreed and noted that they are ahead of schedule, but the staff needs time to make important changes.
Meyers asked if approving the 5-Year Road Plan is going to include the right-of-way map. Parker said that is correct. Normally, they have adopted the right-of-way dedication map along with the 5-Year Road Plan. Meyers asked if all the right-of-way dedications are new this year. Parker said there have been a number of changes to the map. They will be requesting right-of-way dedication to the County so that in the future, even 20 or 30 years out, if the road were rebuilt, the County would not have to purchase that right-of-way. This would minimize future construction costs. They would not be doing any work to the right-of-way areas unless there was a need. Stutsman added only if someone wants to do rezone or plat their property would the dedication of the right-of-way become an issue. Parker said that is correct; that is the only time this map takes effect. Stutsman said this is savings to the taxpayers because they won’t have to go back after the fact to purchase right-of-way, which can be very expensive. The Board agreed to put these two items on the formal agenda for next week.
Jay Speckeen said that he came to the Board last week to discuss the real estate tax policy. He said he has a tax bill for property that he and his wife purchased when they moved back to the County. They recently got an overview bill, which was the first bill they received. The original bill was sent to the people they bought their home from. When he questioned the Treasurer’s Department, he was told that they only update their records every six months. He tried to inquire politely why the Recorder’s Office had those records immediately when the Treasurer’s Office did not. He was told that the Treasurer's Office didn’t have any idea what was going on in other departments. Speckeen said that seemed curious to him, to say the least. His impression is that the Treasurer’s Department is to keep accurate records of who owns property, send tax bills, and receive payment. Updating those records every six months doesn’t seem like enough. Speckeen said that he has no problem paying his taxes. The interest penalty that is tacked on is something that he does have an issue with. He said that one thing that is in public discussion now is the idea of credit card companies and banks making so much money on fees and interest. Apparently, they don’t make much money on their everyday business and rely on these fees. He said this instance seems akin to that. It seems very convenient that the Treasurer’s Department can send out a bill quite late or to the wrong address and then tack an interest fee onto it. Speckeen said that lest anyone think this is just about him or is an isolated instance, he said that he was the last one to speak at the last meeting, and there was a couple there that approached him and said that they had the same problem when they bought their house.
R. Sullivan asked if when Speckeen sat down at the closing, he received money to pay the taxes. Speckeen said that it was adjusted then. He said that he expected a bill as usual. R. Sullivan said that it sounds as if Speckeen knew he would be responsible for the taxes but just didn’t get the bill. Speckeen said he does remember being asked if he wanted the taxes to be rolled into escrow or to take care of them himself. He said that he is not claiming that he was not made aware of that at the closing. Neuzil said that the trouble is the bill was sent to the previous landowner. Meyers asked if they closed on June 27, 2006. Speckeen said he thinks it was early July when they closed. Harney said it sounds like the bill did go to the previous property owner. Yet, he added that the Treasurer’s Office can only do some much; they can’t track everyone and when they buy and sell houses. He said the previous owner should have informed Speckeen. Stutsman said that if she had closed on a house, she would have gone down and paid the taxes instead of waiting for the bill to pay the taxes. She said there is some responsibility on the part of the taxpayer. She noted that all of this information is online.
R. Sullivan said that there are only two working days between June 27th and July 1st for information to get from the bank to the Recorder’s Office. Speckeen asked why this change could only be done every six months. As a small business, he can’t imagine not having more accurate records than every six months. Harney thought that every six months is not correct. When a change occurs, it goes to the Recorder’s Office where that is logged in, and then the information goes to the Treasurer’s Office. County Treasurer Tom Kriz said that all of the updating is done by the Auditor’s Office. Once the Auditor receives documents from the Recorder, they update the records. Before 1999, the records were updated at the end of each year. The Auditor’s Office works hard to ensure that all addresses are changed prior to any mailings going out regarding delinquent mailings or new notices. For City addresses, the City Assessor handles those. Kriz said that the Treasurer gets data from the Auditor’s Office showing the changes, and that information is then sent to the printer. It is not up to his office when the records are updated; that is up to the Recorder, the Auditor, and the Assessor.
Recessed at 10:14 a.m.; reconvened at 10:20 a.m.
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia said that Juvenile Court Supervisor Lloyd Smith presented last fall about some of the issues regarding juvenile detention needs for Johnson County youth. At that time, the Board asked to create a working group to consider options. R. Sullivan, Stutsman, Carol Thompson, Connie Sarchet, Dave Wagner, local attorney Jeff Fields, Budget Coordinator Richard Claiborne, Facilities Director David Kempf, and Correia were all members of that group. Linn County is continuing to set aside three beds a day for Johnson County youth. When Johnson County has more than three youth, then they first try to go to Linn County. When there are no beds in Linn County, they look at surrounding detention centers including Scott, Blackhawk, and Eldora. The options include considering a Linn County contract guaranteeing additional beds per day or contracting with other detention centers in surrounding counties, or contracting with a local youth agency to provide shelter and detention facilities. That would be adding a detention service in Johnson County that is not currently available. Or, they could propose to the Linn County Board of Supervisors the construction of an additional pod at Linn County’s site.
Correia said the group concluded that the Linn County Detention Center provides the best detention option for Johnson County youth. Part of that consideration includes the quality of service provided by the staff and the proximity of the location to the lawyers, family, and the courts. Last year, the number of trips going outside of Johnson County but not to Linn County was 164 with an average trip time of two hours. To facilitate additional youth being served in Johnson County, they initiated a meeting with Linn County about entering into a new contract to increase the number of beds. One of the issues with this is that while the average number of youth per night has been six, there is a chance that Johnson County might not need all of those beds on a given night, and they do not want to be charged for that if they could be filled by others.
Harney said that Central Iowa Juvenile Detention Center had requested to take some of Johnson County’s youth. Correia said she has let them know where the County is in the process. She said that sometimes the judges request Sheriff transport, so even if CIJD provides transportation, the County cannot accept it. Stutsman asked if the judge has to request a Sheriff transport. Smith responded that the judge has to make a specific request. Stutsman asked if they would consider something else. Smith said possibly. The transportation cost is not directly assessed to the County; it goes back to the Juvenile Court budget, so the Juvenile Court has always been resistant to paying a separate fee for transportation. He explained that with the private transporters, they cannot be held liable or responsible in the way that the Deputy Sheriffs would be. Also, those transporters are not necessarily given background checks. Correia said she thought they did do background checks. If they look at the map of Iowa’s detention centers, Scott County would be closer for transporting than central Iowa.
Correia said that there is an issue around the lawyers and the youth’s families being able to see them, so there are other considerations than dollars. R. Sullivan said there are dollars that go into distance. If a person is in Eldora or in Swisher, it makes a difference as far as ease and cost of transportation. Smith said that frequently the judge gives discretion to the probation officer regarding timing visits. For kids going into detention for the first time, it is usually one of the most traumatic things they have experienced, and not having contact with their parents or lawyers comes at a big cost. If they have a court hearing, they could have the person on the telephone or on videotape, though many attorneys object to that because the child might not be able to speak freely. The court cannot see the kid’s expression, and the attorney cannot follow up with questions. Sometimes they move immediately from detention hearings to adjudication or conviction hearings. This means the child would not be in a situation where they could face their accuser.
Harney said the Central Iowa Juvenile Detention Center had made a request that the County get involved. Smith said they have used that detention center, and they do a pretty good job. They have a much more austere facility and do not have a school facility. But they are building a new facility. He said that if a day is lost in the detention center, the administrator has always averaged the day over a month, as opposed to a week, which increased the County’s savings. Harney said they have to look at the effectiveness of the program and the amount that the taxpayers are paying. Neuzil asked if the committee knows if Linn County and their Board are talking about adding an additional wing and would they be willing to allow Johnson County to increase the amount of beds reserved for them. Correia said yes. She said there has also been discussion of ways to make better use of detention alternative programs. There has been talk about global positioning tracking which shows where the youth is at all times.
Smith said that Linn County is not necessarily opposed to a new facility. They just wanted to take a close look at the need to see if the increase was seasonal or temporary. The numbers of the two counties combined demands more space, Smith said. Neuzil said that they need to know if Linn County is going to add a pod to their system so that Johnson County can budget accordingly. R. Sullivan said that they talked about this before and decided that it would be Linn County’s issue. Linn County is providing a service that Johnson County is paying for. This might drive the cost up a little. He noted that Linn County isn’t even interested in Johnson County contributing. Stutsman said they are renewing the contract and asking for additional beds. The other thing the committee is doing is compiling important numbers to determine future needs. The contract is currently being reviewed by County Attorney Janet Lyness.
Harney asked if Johnson County has people in other place than Linn County. Smith said they do not at this moment, but they have had as many as six kids out-of-County. They have used Black Hawk County in the past. Correia said they first use Johnson County’s beds, then Linn County’s, and then others’. Stutsman said that it has been good to work with Peg Pangborn, the coordinator of the facility at Linn County. She really works with the population and the court services to do what is best for the kids. R. Sullivan said it was really good to hear that they do not automatically boot a Johnson County kid for a Linn County kid, but go through a very formal process of evaluation.
Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan said that Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek could not be here today. For the City of Shueyville, the Sheriff’s Office will provide 10 hours a week of patrolling and other associated law enforcement functions at a rate of $27 per hour, for a total of $14,040 per year. The second agreement is with Lone Tree to provide 30 hours of patrolling and other associated law enforcement functions per week. That is also at the rate of $27, for a total of $42,120 for the year. Both have been approved by the respective City Councils and signed by the respective mayors and city clerks. The Board agreed to put this item on the agenda for next week.
Harney said they had received a letter from the judge saying that in order to meet mandates, the County needs to appoint two women to the Judicial Magistrates Commission. They have a list of applicants. The Board of Supervisors will send their preferences to M. Sullivan, who will put this on the agenda for next week. M. Sullivan said there are six members to this Commission. The Board of Supervisors is responsible for appointing three of those six members. The Bar Association elected two men as lawyer representatives in May 2005. In January 2003, the Board of Supervisors had appointed Harry Seelman, Bill Terry, and Joe Ewing. The net result is that the Commission does not comply with the Iowa Code that requires gender balance on all state-established commissions. Judge Russell is asking the Board of Supervisors to reappoint their members to achieve that balance. M. Sullivan said he would also need to know which two male positions they want to replace.
R. Sullivan asked if the men who are serving on the Committee have been contacted about this. M. Sullivan said he doesn’t think so. R. Sullivan said that if they contact them and let them know of the situation, perhaps two might voluntarily step down. He said at the very least, the current members need to be notified about what is going on. M. Sullivan said that these positions are five-year positions and are not up for reappointment until the end of 2008. Harney asked when the Bar appointed theirs. M. Sullivan said in May 2005. He explained that Judge Russell has already corresponded with the Bar Association requesting that at their next meeting, they appoint one female and one male member to the commission. Stutsman said that it seems everyone is being held to the same standard which is good. Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell said that this commission does not meet on a regular basis. There was a vacancy in the magistrate position because one of the Magistrates has been appointed to District Court Judge. At some point, they discovered that they have no gender balance on the Commission. His sense is that they just overlooked that. He said it is an awkward situation, but it is a good thing to have gender equity on the committee. He agreed with R. Sullivan that it is a good idea to contact the current members and notify them of the situation. He thought it would help to know how many terms the current members have served to this point. The Board agreed to have M. Sullivan contact the members this week and have this item on the agenda in two weeks.
M. Sullivan said they need one person for the Historic Preservation Commission, and they have four applicants. The Board will send their nomination to M. Sullivan. Stutsman asked about gender equity on the Commission. M. Sullivan said they have five females and two males, and the one who is leaving is male.
Meyers attended the District Six Legislative Conference, the Canvass of Votes for the February 13, 2007 SILO election, the County Assessor Conference Board meeting, and the Solon Beef Days Committee meeting.
Neuzil attended the District Six Legislative Conference, and the SEATS Advisory Committee meeting. Neuzil noted that the Iowa Department of Transportation is going to have a meeting to discuss the proposed safety improvement of Highway 1 on February 26, 2007 at the Solon Middle School in the auditorium between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Stutsman attended the SEATS Advisory Committee meeting, the Empowerment Board meeting, and the District Six Legislative Conference.
R. Sullivan attended the District Six Legislative Conference, and the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors meeting. R. Sullivan noted that Bowl for Kids’ Sake to raise money for Big Brothers/Big Sisters is this weekend. The Cultural Diversity Fair is on Sunday.
Harney attended the Emergency Communication Center Subcommittee meeting, the 6th Judicial District Department of Corrections Board meeting, the Emergency Management Conference, and the County Assessor Conference Board meeting.
Adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary