MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
County Engineer Greg Parker: Weight Embargos on Secondary Roads for Calendar Year 2008
Board of Supervisors: Conservation Board Ballot Measure for the 2008 General Election
Board of Supervisors: Location of Joint Communications Center on County Property
Board of Supervisors: Naming Members to the Joint Communications Center Board
Board of Supervisors: Compensation Board Salary Recommendations for Elected Officials
Board of Supervisors: Iowa State Association of Counties (ISAC) Legislative Lobby Day Items
Board of Supervisors: Appointments to County Trails Advisory Committee
Board of Supervisors: Appointments to Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board
Board of Supervisors: Board Appointee to JCCOG Transportation Committee
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:03 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
County Engineer Greg Parker said that the weight embargos resolution is an annual resolution to allow the Secondary Roads department to embargo roads to minimize damage. Damage typically takes place in the spring with freezing, and in the fall with heavy rains. Parker stated that the Code specifically states that they cannot embargo a road longer than a specific period of time and after that they have to release it.
Stutsman asked what to expect this year from the roads. Parker said this probably will not be a good year and the gravel roads were in bad shape. The seal coats to date have been holding themselves up fairly well. Parker said they have only had minimum embargoes since the time he had been with Johnson County, since winters had been mild until now.
Meyers stated that they already had an issue back in early January of 2008. Parker responded that was correct, and the roads did not respond well to the thaw. Parker said that as the snow disappears, they are going to see all the hurt on their gravel roads, at least in the spring for certain. Stutsman stated that the embargo just impacts the chip seal roads, and the County usually does this embargo for three months. Stutsman noted that they pass the resolution on to Parker, and he determines when the embargo should be put on. Parker said if there is a need to embargo a specific section of roadway, the resolution would cover it for the County for the year 2008.
Parker said there weren’t many substantial changes compared to last year in the 5 Year Road Construction Program. Parker noted that they had to extend a couple projects to different years. Parker said he looked at funding sources and tried to balance those projects so they could pay for that construction. Parker said the Iowa Code requires that the Board approve the 5 Year Road Construction Program by April 15 of each year. Parker said the Secondary Roads construction program includes an accomplishment list for the next fiscal year, and a project priority list for the succeeding four fiscal years. Parker said the program is subject to the approval of the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) after the Board has approved it and they’ve submitted it to the DOT. Parker noted that all the information is available on the Johnson County website.
Parker said the overview is organized by fiscal year so the first set of projects is FY09, and then they have those projects broken up into groups. Parker explained that Project A is just a designation, which does not indicate a priority or importance. Project A involves improvements at the intersection of Derby Avenue and 120th Street with a construction cost estimate of $240,000. There are several different fund sources for construction projects. Parker said that the Derby Avenue and 120th Street project is going to be paid out of local funds. The project was previously programmed for FY08. Parker said they will complete this, and then it will be a 2009 project.
Parker noted the Board had requested the staff to complete a planning cost estimate on what a separated trail construction would be on this designated route. Parker said the cost estimate for the project did not include this additional cost for a separated trail or right-of-way acquisition. Parker also stated that if the Board wants to determine if they need to add a separated trail for that project, they would have to go back and look at the other projects in the report, because, Parker mentioned, the fund source only has so much money for the project. Stutsman noted that if they wanted to go with a dedicated trail, that would push the project back because there would be no way they could put the project in place by 2009. Parker said Stutsman's comment was correct because they would have to acquire additional right-of-way, which would not otherwise be needed for this project. Parker said that in addition, the Code does not allow the condemnation of agricultural land for separated trails.
Stutsman asked if everything in the plan for FY09 is also in the budget. Parker replied that everything was included except the separated trail costs, and Parker also mentioned that there are funds to cover the construction costs for the projects. However, Parker pointed out, construction costs are going up on average 20 to 30% per year. Parker said that if the bids come in abnormally high, they will have to regroup and decide whether to proceed with the project or not.
Neuzil asked if the projects they put in for the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) were in the report. Parker said two of the CIP programs would be done as in-house maintenance activity, and would not have to be included in the 5 Year Road Plan. Parker said that if they had hired contractors, then they would have included that as part of their 5 Year Road Plan. Parker went on to say that of the four CIP projects, there was one that was opposed by residents. Parker then said that he is sending out letters to residents on a second project to see if it is a possibility. Parker said that with the other two projects, they are considering whether to do the project in-house, or considering if they will have to do a construction project. Parker pointed out that if it is a construction project, it may need to be done in the following year, because the cost would be relatively higher.
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller said the only difference between the presentation from last year, 2007, and this year, 2008, is that the calendar year is included along with the fiscal year. Miller stated an FY09 project could be constructed in the summer of calendar year 2008. Miller said project FY09A is an intersection project on Derby Avenue and 120th Street. Miller stated the cost estimate is $240,000. Miller said this would increase the sight distance looking east to accommodate anticipated additional traffic. Miller said project FY09B is the 540th Street grading and paving project near the Twin County Dairy. Miller confirmed the cost estimate was at $220,000. Miller stated that currently it is just a short section of road in front of the dairy. Stutsman asked if Twin County Dairy is helping with the cost of the project. Miller said Twin County would be helping with the cost, for about $60,000. Harney asked if an extension beyond the dairy was included in the cost. Miller responded that the extension is not currently included in the cost, but has been discussed. Parker said one resident had asked about extending the paving to Gable Avenue because they wanted to rezone and possibly split some property, and the guidelines required that if they do rezone and split property, the road would need to be paved. Parker said the estimate to go from Gable Avenue was close to a million dollars. Parker said there was not enough money to do the project within the 5 Year Road Plan, and it would be up to the Board to decide if they want to proceed with it. Miller said the amount of money the person wanted to contribute to the project was not sufficient, but Miller said he is still discussing it with the landowner.
Miller said there is an issue with semis loading and unloading at the dairy, and the dairy entrance is right up against Highway 1. Miller said that the project will get rid of that entrance and provide some customer parking for the dairy. Miller described how there will only be one entrance and it will be wider. Miller said the developers agreed to do some staging of trucks back in that area and to simply pull across to the operation on the south side of the road. Miller said that the project will be paved with curb and gutter. Stutsman said this would be a good improvement to the intersection. Miller said the project will be constructed summer of 2008.
Miller said project FY09D is a pavement rehabilitation project on 500th Street from the County line to Angle Road. Miller said that this project is currently in a Department of Transportation (DOT) letting in May 2008 and should be built this summer depending what the DOT sets for a late start date. Miller said that Project FY09E is pavement rehabilitation on Lower Old Highway 6, at an estimated cost of $800,000. Miller said that this project should also be constructed this coming summer as well. Neuzil asked if the projects will have paved shoulders. Miller responded that on this project there is not enough right-of-way to work with. Miller said they are going to widen to the minimum width of the travel lane, but this is a lower traffic volume road. Parker said the road will be wider than shown, but as part of the 3R guidelines they will have to have minimum road width to meet the traffic level and traffic issues.
Miller said project FY09F is the Curtis Bridge Road Pavement Rehabilitation, at an estimated cost of $423,000. R. Sullivan asked if a good portion of the project was paid for by the developer. Parker said that it was paid for and that an agreement will come to the Board for approval soon. He said that there is the possibility of another development across the road from the project and he would request the same type of financial match. Harney asked if Curtis Bridge Road would be resurfaced in the same way as Highway 382 out of Solon. Miller responded that the plan is to rubbleize the existing concrete on the road and then overlay it with asphalt.
Miller said the next two projects involve pavement rehabilitation on Highway 965 from the Iowa River to 120th Street. Miller said that they are going to install drainage tiles along the side of the road as well as widen the existing pavement with macadam stone base at an estimated cost of estimated at $350,000 to prepare it for the pavement rehabilitation itself. Miller said the second project is pavement rehabilitation, estimated at $1,650,000. Miller said that would include some Federal money. The project would include a 6 foot paved shoulder. R. Sullivan said this was one of the former State highways that was given to Johnson County, but that it comes with a high price tag, considering the condition of the road and what they have to do to fix it. Harney said the State gives a certain amount of funds for maintenance but those did not cover the cost. R. Sullivan said the DOT will give $220,000 a year for 10 years, but the County will spend $1.6 million on this project alone. Harney said the DOT had turned the highway provided from 120th to the Linn County line over to the City of Cedar Rapids, which has no intent of updating the shoulders. Parker said the DOT had asked the County not to work on Highway 965 in the summer of 2008 because of work on Interstate 380.
Miller said project FY09I is a Pavement Replacement Project with paved shoulders on 120th street from Highway 965 to Interstate 380, for an estimated $600,000. Project FY09J is the Oak Crest Hill Road Pavement rehabilitation project from the Hills city limits to Iowa City for an estimated $1.6 million. Miller said that this is another section of roadway that was given to the County by the DOT. One section of road has the east half in the City of Hills. Miller said he wants to get a joint project for Hills to get their section of the road at the same time, and Hills may be interested. Miller said they are considering a dedicated trail along the roadway as over the drainage structures; that would be a little over $1.2 million. There would be a six foot paved shoulder on this project. Miller said the road would likely be in poor condition in the spring of 2008.
Miller said project FY09K is a bridge replacement on Black Diamond Road. Secondary Roads had hoped to build it in the summer of 2008, but they had some issues with design. Miller said they don't want to back up too much water behind the bridge, so they had to hire a consultant who is doing a more in-depth study on the size of that bridge. There are Federal funds and they expect construction to be in the summer of 2009.
Miller then stated that project FY09M was a bridge that was hit by a vehicle and collapsed a couple of years ago. The road is currently closed. Miller stated that the estimated cost would be $390,000. Miller said the bridge was an old pony truss bridge. When one of the trusses is damaged, the whole bridge collapses. Stutsman asked if they were going to do the project this summer or if it was still in the legal system. Parker said the Board had requested the project be included as part of the 5 Year Road Plan, and that the case is still in litigation. R. Sullivan said the Board had decided to replace the bridge, regardless of the legal outcome. Parker stated that he was going to find out what came from the case, and, based on the money they would potentially get from the litigation, the engineers would figure out what would be the best thing to do. Parker said that traffic on that road is very minimal and there is a paved road to the west that has just been done. Parker also noted that a bridge has been replaced less than a mile from the structure. Parker stated that they would return with a recommendation on whether or not they would recommend replacement, and then Parker would follow the Board's direction.
Miller said project FY10A is the remainder of Oak Crest Hill Road from Hills to the Washington County line. Miller said that the estimate on this section is $1.1 million, and a dedicated trail would be an additional $1 million. Miller continued by saying that project FY10B is the Sharon Center Road Bridge replacement with an estimate of $900,000. Miller said it is a high truss bridge on a seal coat road. Neuzil asked if the plan was to keep the old bridge where it currently is as of February 2008, and then build a new bridge near it. Parker said his recommendation is to keep the bridge open, build a new structure, take care of the approaches, and maintain traffic during construction to avoid a detour of several miles. Miller said that the adjacent property owner didn't particularly care for that option the first time they looked at the plan. Miller said that if the old bridge were replaced at the same location, traffic would be shut down most of the summer.
Miller explained that projects FY11A and FY11B are the Mehaffey Bridge Road pavement rehabilitation and bridge replacement. Miller said that the estimate on the pavement would be $950,000. Miller noted the additional trail estimate was $750,000, which did not include additional right-of-way or the cost of additional bridge width for a separated trail. Miller said they would like to get all the construction on both projects done at the same time. He said the estimated cost of the bridge replacement would be $3.4 million. Neuzil said that the Board was committed to that particular trail for connectivity between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, and one of the other road plans would likely need to be moved away to pay for the additional cost. Miller said Secondary Roads would like direction on this project soon.
R. Sullivan said out of all the projects in the 5 Year Construction Program, Mehaffey Bridge Road is the one where the trail makes the most sense in terms of connectivity and what all the different trails organizations are trying to do. Stutsman asked if it is mostly residential land, and if there is any agricultural land. R. Sullivan replied that it would be almost all residential. Miller said there was also some Federal land, and there is a ravine that is going to take some grading and expensive construction. Meyers asked if they would have to get out of the current right-of-way to do a separated trail. Miller replied that, at a minimum, they are going to need grading easements outside the existing right-of-way. They are going to need a section up in someone's yard to get the trail end. Miller said that they are going to have areas that will need additional right-of-way, and Miller said there are problems with that. Meyers said they have to decide which side of the road to put the trail on. Harney said they did the accommodation from Sugar Bottom on into Solon and this would actually stop at Sugar Bottom Road, so if it would be a separated trail it would start there. Miller stated that from Sugar Bottom to Solon they have paved shoulders. Miller said the weight limit on the bridge would get to the point where trucks are not allowed. The road is narrow and the deck is in very poor shape.
Miller stated that the next project is 520th Street Pavement Rehabilitation from the Hills city limits to Wapsi Avenue. Estimate cost would be $2 million, with an additional $1.6 million for the separated trail. Miller said they anticipate paving some of the shoulder.
Miller said that the next project is a grade and pave project on Herbert Hoover Highway. Miller stated they had split this project in half to spread out the construction and cost over two years. The estimate on the west half would be $1.8 million and the dedicated trail would be $525,000. The east half of the project would require $1.7 million and the trail estimate would be $595,000. Parker noted that this was another multimillion dollar project on a road transferred from the DOT.
Miller said projects FY12B and FY12C were the remainder of 520th Street. The pavement rehabilitation was estimated at $1.2 million, and there is a structure that needs to be replaced. Miller said that the last project is the Ely Road pavement rehabilitation project from Highway 382 up to the County line. The estimate would be $1.2 million.
Harney said these all sound like good projects to him, and Harney pointed out that they are spread throughout the county so everyone is getting an equal share of dollars. Harney then asked if the Mehaffey Bridge Road project would coincide with the DOT's Highway 1 project. Parker said he is not getting solid responses from the DOT about Highway 1. Parker said that he has heard several dates of construction. Parker stated that the DOT was looking at funding issues. Parker said it would be nice to be able to coordinate the construction of both of those projects, but with the uncertainties he thought it was in the County's best interest to go ahead and proceed with Mehaffey Bridge Road. Parker said he would let the DOT know of the County's plans, and if the State had other issues, Parker stated that they need to work around those.
Stutsman asked if Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak had any thoughts on other projects that should be considered. Dvorak said Planning and Zoning would make its recommendations at the February 14, 2008 formal meeting. Dvorak said those recommendations are in agreement with Parker's, but Planning and Zoning is looking more at a future list. Dvorak said it would be basically the same things they've recommended in the past few years, and also include a few different areas that the Board might consider moving up.
Neuzil said the State's transfer of old highways to counties has been frustrating. He said it has taken away the County's ability to do its own planning based on identifying areas where they want growth and development to occur. Neuzil stated that repairs to these transferred roads will cost the County eight to ten years of its own priority projects. The $220,000 a year of maintenance money does not cover the needs. Neuzil said this was frustrating not only for the Board and Secondary Roads, but also for residents who wanted to know why their road has not been fixed. Neuzil said that the State of Iowa gave the County high-traffic roads, and that is what the Board has prioritized. He said it is hard to tell County residents that their tax dollars are going to fix what the State should have been fixing, and Neuzil hoped it would not happen again.
Stutsman said she had not heard that the State was considering turning more roads over. Parker said the situation was not likely in the near future, but it could come around again at any time. Stutsman said everyone is short of funds, and while she didn't agree with what the State did, she can fully understand it. Harney said while he disagreed with what the State did, the State did make a big investment in Highway 218, which runs parallel with Oak Crest Hill Road. Harney said getting it back is fine, but the State should help upgrade it to the point where it is in good condition. Stutsman commented that the State did pay for the bridge, so it hasn't been, in her words, a total disaster.
Parker said there was only one change to the map from last year in 2007. The road east of Iowa City that went to Taft Avenue was paved by the City. The map will be available for discussion and public input at the February 14, 2008 formal meeting. Parker said that after the Board's recommendations, the staff would regroup and place the plan on the formal agenda item so the staff can prepare it to submit to the DOT.
Neuzil asked Parker how soon he needed direction regarding the trail on Mehaffey Bridge Road. Parker said they would need to include it as part of the construction activities in the 5 Year Road Plan that would be approved by the Board sometime in March of 2008. Neuzil replied that he would like to see the direction in the program. R. Sullivan said Mehaffey Bridge Road was the top priority of the Trails Committee, and R. Sullivan would like to see that in there as well. Stutsman said she would like to know if the program is feasible, as far as what kinds of construction issues the program would present. Harney stated that there are going to be some bridges they are not going to be able to replace, and bike traffic would have to be brought back onto the highway. Parker replied that he didn't know of any such structures, and the proposed new Mehaffey Bridge will accommodate a separated trail. Parker said that if they don't do the trail now, and decide to come back later to build the trail, the bridge will accommodate the trail, but they will have to decide which side of the road the trail will be on. Parker said it would make sense to put the trail on the east side of the road, since the boat dock and Sugar Bottom Road are also on the east side. Harney said he would support a trail along Mahaffey Bridge Road, but he would need more information on the roads south of Hills. Sullivan said the roads south of Hills were cost-prohibitive. Stutsman replied that it was agricultural land. Neuzil said people have been happy with Sand Road and the wide paved shoulders.
Parker said it is important to determine which side of Mehaffey Bridge Road a separated trail would be on before they build the bridge. Meyers said he would like to see the separated trail there, but with some of the geography they would need to determine if it is possible. Miller said that a separated trail on the left side would need a lot of fill. Parker said both sides of the road will present challenges for separated trails. Residents have not yet been approached about the project. Parker said their input could help determine if one side works better than the other. There might be a possibility that separated trail would cross the road.
R. Sullivan said he would like to start planning for the project to see if it can be done. Parker said building a separated trail should not have any negatives during the construction process. Harney replied that the only difference that would occur would be if they don't do the separated trail, the result would be there would not be the wider shoulder. Harney said it would be better to do everything during construction, rather than trying to come back later to add on. Parker responded that they would determine at the time of design whether or not they will add a separated trail so they could accommodate a paved shoulder. Neuzil commented that at least three Board members wanted Parker to include the Mehaffey Bridge Road trail as of February 7, 2008, but that it sounded like that would be the only one out of four projects. Neuzil stated that Herbert Hoover Highway could be considered in a few years as well.
Parker said that all the documents he presented are on the website, listed as drafts. Stutsman asked if Secondary Roads sent a press release out about the February 14, 2008 public comment meeting. Parker said he had not but would do so.
Miller said if Secondary Roads would get the money for the embankment stabilization project at Lake MacBride, the Board would need to add that project to the 5 Year Road Program by resolution. Parker said there is a guard rail on the south side of Cottage Reserve Road. The embankment that runs along Lake MacBride has been eroding for many years. That section was the one section of the lake that was not reinforced with riprap. There have been some concerns from residents about the possibility of the land eroding into the road. Parker said Conservation Board member Amy Bouska had found a potential fund source, which would need a letter of support from the Board. Parker stated the total construction cost would be $120,000. Parker said the application would be for $62,000. Parker said the DNR would contribute $10,000, and that the County would be responsible for $34,000. He said he could save $10,000 by managing, designing, and surveying the project in-house. R. Sullivan asked Parker if formal action at the February 14, 2008 meeting would meet the application deadline. Parker responded that it would.
Parker stated that the project could be added to the 5 Year Road Program by resolution. Meyers asked if the DNR had skipped placing riprap in the area when the lake was drained. Parker replied that that was his understanding, and if they had put the embankment material on the location, there would not be an erosion issue as of February 2008. Meyers said this would cost the County a lot of money because the DNR didn't take preventative measures.
Parker said the total project cost is $120,000, minus $10,000 for design activities and management. Parker said they are looking at grant money of a little over $62,000, so the actual out of pocket cost for the County would be $34,000. The bulk of the cost would be replacement of the guardrail, because it does not meet inspection. The other cost portion would be to repair the erosion on the embankment. Harney asked why they couldn't include the project with the 5 Year Road Plan and push it back if the grants would not come through. Parker stated that Secondary Roads is also seeking another fund source for the project, and could add that if the Board prefers. The Board agreed to place the item on a future formal agenda.
Parker said in the past the Board has determined that the prioritization of STP funds shall go to Johnson County Secondary Roads. The City of Lone Tree had requested a $237,000 match for a $300,000 project. Secondary Roads had prioritized the STP funds to go towards the Oak Crest Hill project. Parker noted that if the Board determined that they would like to give those funds to Lone Tree as requested, his department would have to come up with the $240,000 somewhere else to fund the projects in the County's 5 Year Road Program. R. Sullivan said he believed the County has never before given STP funds to another entity. Parker replied that was also his understanding.
Stutsman said Lone Tree wanted to use the funds for their main street. Parker confirmed this and said Devoe Street was the main north/south route through town, and was an extension of a County road. Stutsman said that there were so many County needs, and she could not justify it as it had not been done before. R. Sullivan agreed.
Recessed at 10:10 a.m.; reconvened at 10:15 a.m.
Conservation Director Harry Graves said there have been a number of successful land preservation ballot measures throughout the United States over the last 15 years for the preservation of natural land, and the organization that has worked with most of those successful initiatives is the Trust for Public Land. Graves said Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation Representative Mark Ackleson was able to connect the Johnson County Conservation Board with the Trust for Public Land. A feasibility study was suggested and performed, followed by a public opinion poll in order to test the waters for a land preservation initiative.
Trust for Public Land Representative David Carter said his role was to come in and share with the Board the data they have collected about Johnson County, and about land preservation and conservation, to help them decide. Carter said counties and the cities across the United States are overwhelmingly supporting land conservation ballot measures. On February 5, 2008, Forsythe County, Georgia has approved with a 70% yes vote a $100 million ballot measure for land conservation that was going to result in a tax increase in $140 per medium house household. Carter said that on the same day, the City of San Francisco passed a $188 million ballot measure.
Carter said the Trust for Public Land thought there was a void across the nation in helping communities look at ways to generate revenue for land conservation. The Trust has won 341 ballot issues out of 405, and those issues have totaled $25 billion. Carter said presidential election years seem to be the best time to put issues on the ballot, and the least attractive time is special elections. Carter said the Trust recommends a November 2008 ballot measure.
Carter said one of the things that funding research looks at is the funding options. He is often asked when he comes into a community to find a silver bullet of a new source of funding. New funding sources are very small in nature and they do not yield the amount of money that most communities need in order to advance. Carter said they come up with the big four that they typically see at the state level: general obligation bonds, lottery proceeds, transfer taxes, and license plates. At the local level, general obligation bonds, dedicated property taxes, dedicated sales taxes, and general fund appropriations are important.
Carter said they did a 47 question public opinion poll with 400 completed interviews, and the results represents all age, socioeconomic, rural, and urban demographics. Carter said the results show there is very strong support across all socioeconomic layers of the community for a ballot measure of this nature, even with the supermajority requirements of 60%. Carter said Johnson County showed some of the highest support numbers he has seen nationally. Carter says they always see water in the 80% range, but in Johnson County 93% said they need to protect the water resources. Carter said the prominence of the Iowa and Cedar Rivers in the community are important, and people that live here said they would like to see those river corridors protected. Carter said 89% want protection of existing green space, and 88% said they want to protected forests to improve air quality.
Carter said the voters will support a $20 million ballot measure, but do not support condemnation of any land. That sentiment has escalated after the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelso case a couple years ago. Another important factor is annual auditing. Carter said the general public is not aware that by law counties have to have their books audited. Carter said the public doesn't know that as a rule, and the auditing needs to be emphasized so people know that the money is being spent as intended.
Carter said money will be leveraged with other sources. Many projects require local matching funds, and nationally he has seen that for every dollar local governments puts in, they should receive 2 1/2 to 3 times that. That means a $20 million ballot measure should yield $45 million to $60 million. Carter said the people of Johnson County have a high confidence in Graves and the Conservation Board. Carter said that research shows that a ballot measure allows everyone to have a voice on how their tax money is to be spent. It allows people to decide what land is important to their quality of life, and it creates a vision for the future, and the future of our children. Even in Florida, where a lot of the residents are retirees, they still have extremely strong support.
Carter said Federal funding for land and water conservation used to be quite robust in the 1970s but in the past seven years it has just about dropped off the radar. However, there are other grant programs at the Federal level that would be a good idea to look into, including a forest legacy program, farmland protection program, endangered species programs, greenways and trails, and State revolving funds for water. Carter said there has been a decrease in the last couple years, but there was still $1 billion in the last three years. Carter said external funding is very important but it has to be secondary to local funding. Competition for external funding is extremely fierce, and the ability to provide a local match is important.
Carter said land conservation is a bipartisan issue. Carter stated that Forsythe County, Georgia, is extremely Republican and very fiscally conservative, yet the measure passed with 70%. Carter said that they have a broad base from both the environmental and business community because this has very strong economic impacts in a very positive fashion. Carter said that if indeed the Board decides to go forward, the next step is the measure design. He said he has sent draft ballot language to the County Attorney to initiate the conversation. Carter said he wants to make sure the project is affordable, and public support at $20 million is strong. Carter went on to say that he recommends that if they go forth to let folks know that there is an annual audit, that by law they have to do that, so that folks know that their money is going that way.
Carter said ballot language is crucial in their research. The wording has certain legal constraints and requirements from the State. Carefully worded ballot measures are important so that people understand what their money is going to be used for. Carter said that's where the Johnson County Attorney, along with bond counsel, will look at how to best write the measure to meet the legal requirements and also convey to the public how the money will be used, with important issues addressed such as accountability and transparency.
Carter offered examples of two different ballot wordings from Adams County, Colorado. The first time the issue went before the voters, they did not understand the measure and it failed. Two years later, when the project hadn't changed that much, they worked with bond counsel and their county attorney to reword it and list specific items so it was more clear how the money would be spent, and on the second try the issue passed. Carter said it is important to include a title if allowed by law, and that the annual independent audit is a very crucial aspect because people want to know if their money is going to be spent the right way.
Carter said that if the Board decided to place the proposal in the ballot, the next stage would be the campaign. Carter said he would work with the staff and community leaders to set up a campaign committee. The committee would raise private funds to run the campaign, and no public dollars would be used. Carter mentioned that they would look for endorsements and newspaper coverage within the community. Carter said the final component of the campaign would be to get out the vote effort. Carter concluded by saying that it is the Trust for Public Lands recommendation to look at the ballot measure as an economic impact that will be far greater than the original $20 million.
Graves said that the County's green infrastructure-forest, rivers, and streams, need consideration. R. Sullivan stated that the Board was not taking formal action that day, and this discussion was just to see if whether they saw value in proceeding. Neuzil said he saw value in proceeding further and said he would like to see it on the following week's agenda. Stutsman said that according to County Auditor Tom Slockett the Board did not have to make a decision until August to have it put on the ballot. She said she had asked County Attorney Janet Lyness to get some information about the cost of the bond counsel, and that she wanted to support it but wanted to have all of the information in front of her before making a decision.
R. Sullivan asked if the information was something the Board could get in a week. Lyness said she would contact the bond counsel for a rough estimate. Stutsman said it wasn't something the Board had budgeted for and said that there were a lot of costs coming up, and the Board had a responsibility to check that out.
Meyers said that he felt they should give at least some indication to the Johnson County Conservation Board before August that the Board was in favor of the measure. Harney said he thought it was prudent that the voters could make the decision for themselves, rather than the Board members making that decision for them, but he would also like a cost estimate before making a decision.
Meyers asked about the impact of the measure. Graves said that it would equate to $2.25 per month per $100,000 valuation, or 21¢ per acre for ag land. Lyness said the Board could go ahead and place the issue on future agendas, so the public could discuss the issue with the Board, while she contacted the bond counsel for a cost estimate.
Ackelson said that Iowans needed to invest in their green infrastructure because it was not only good for the environment but for the economy as well and the quality of life in the communities. Ackelson noted the results of the poll, and said the water quality, trails, and parks were considered important. He said that there had been too much reliance on Federal and State government to pick up the slack, and that both governments could not provide the necessary leadership to get things done. Ackelson said the Johnson County Conservation Board had done an excellent job of identifying issues, exploring strategies, and doing background work with polls. Ackelson asked the Board members to compare this project to central Iowa’s Project Destiny, which he called a disaster, and stated it went against every principle that Carter had talked about. Ackelson said the public was not well engaged and the Project Destiny ballot was too complicated. He urged the Board members to give citizens a chance to voice their opinions.
County Trails Advisory Committee Chair Janelle Rettig said that within a year, in 2009, or within 18 months, the Committee would be able to have a five-year plan for conservation/recreation, air quality, and trails. Rettig said the County does 5 Year Road Construction Plans every year, and that the Trails Advisory Committee would work hand in hand with the Johnson County Conservation Board to make green spaces and trail spaces. She urged members of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to vote on the issue as soon as possible because she felt momentum needed to be built for a successful campaign.
Iowa City Planning and Community Development Director Jeff Davidson said he had forwarded the materials that his group had used for site determination, and Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell had also forwarded a location map. Stutsman asked how the site had been determined. Davidson said that they had had a nine-member steering committee for the project and that from 13 possible sites the committee used various criteria such as access to roadways, adequate size, and whether the site could be secured, to rank them before taking a final vote on the top five. R. Sullivan said the committee had included Harney and County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek. Davidson said it also included Ambulance Director Steve Spenler. He said that from the top five, the committee narrowed it down to three possible sites, two of which had fatal flaws, which led them to unanimously decide on the Iowa City Water Treatment Plant site. Davidson said they had hired an architect and a radio system consultant, the latter of whom pointed out the nearby AM radio antenna made the site unworkable. This led the committee to select three entirely new locations, and they settled on the Johnson County Farm site because of utility access, highway and street access, and flatness. Davidson said the Iowa City City Council had tentatively agreed to a $1 per year lease, and that he thought this was preferable to buying the property outright.
Stutsman asked how the site would be accessed, and Davidson said the committee would perform a detailed site analysis and he thought the property could be accessed through the Chatham Oaks driveway, which might need to be upgraded. Stutsman then asked if towers would be located on the site, and Davidson said that a 50 to 60 foot tower was likely, though the final decision would be made by the radio system consultant. Stutsman asked if there would be a cluster of towers, and Davidson said that there would be just one. Harney said that he had spoken to the engineer and he was informed it would be a self-standing ladder tower with no support cables.
Neuzil said he thought putting a building on the County Farm property would set a precedent for future buildings, and while he supported the communication center and its budget, he did not support the location. He suggested a long-term swap or trade with a developer for land, and said the suggested location would put the communication center at potential distance from the new justice center. Harney said the committee had talked to some people about a land swap but the only available slots of land were in the flight pattern of the airport. He said the location was probably not the best, but it was good enough.
Stutsman asked if the committee had given consideration to the land where the Armory was proposed. Davidson said they had not given it any more consideration because the County already seemed to have plans for that site and the timing for the site did not seem ideal. Meyers asked if there was a drop-dead date when the communication center had to start. Davidson said there is an imperative because of Iowa City's need to replace its radio system, but it could be a local policy decision to wait until the Guard site became available. Harney said that he had spoken to National Guard Colonel Vince Reefer who informed him that the President had signed the bill funding the new Guard facility, and the Guard would be letting bids in the early spring. He said that it would take at least 18 months to build the building and because of needed asbestos work that they were looking at an excess of two years before they could have the location. Meyers said the Armory site had scored very high, and timing on acquisition of the property had affected several projects.
Neuzil said it would make more sense to put the communication center on the County Campus rather than at the County Farm, and the Board should consider other options. Stutsman said the Board went through a careful planning process with the County Farm. The site has been designated for public use, and Stutsman cannot think of a more public use than the communication center. She said the Board could still reserve the right to reject future requests. Neuzil said that there were different ways to define public use, whether that was putting buildings and towers on the site, or through a park.
Harney said that they would prefer to be near Secondary Roads but noted that storage room was needed for trucks and equipment, and that there just wasn’t room because of the SEATS facility. He said the Guard property would probably not be wasted, given the County's needs, but that the communications center cannot wait two years. Meyers asked how big a site was needed for the communications center. Davidson answered around three acres. Neuzil commented that the space would depend on parking. Davidson said most of the site would be for the building itself. Stutsman asked if the proposed building would be one story. Davidson said yes, and noted that they might also have some subterranean area.
Iowa City Police Chief Sam Hargadine said that the Iowa City Police and Fire Departments were ready to replace their equipment two years ago, but that their overall goal was to become an inoperable system. He said there were Federal Communications Commission (FCC) re-banding issues, and that decisions needed to be made by 2011. Meyers noted that the Guard site had scored high and asked if it was reasonable to wait two or three years before starting the project. Hargadine said he agreed that it made sense to make the building part of the criminal justice complex, but that a Plan B was needed because Iowa City can't wait that long. Neuzil said if there was direction to put it next to the Courthouse, the Board could do it tomorrow, February 8, 2008. Stutsman asked where, and Neuzil said he was just suggesting it to incorporate the Courthouse. Hargadine said that the nine committee members had nine different favorite sites, and he originally thought the Iowa City Water Treatment site would work before realizing that the site wouldn’t. Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey interjected that it really wasn’t about the site’s compatibility not working out, but about how much more it would cost to use. Bailey stated that if it was still considered a favorable site, they could do some mitigation for the interference and pay the radio station for the interference.
Neuzil said he was supportive of the project and the budget, but he was not comfortable locating the communication center at the County Farm. Harney said another site that was considered was the CarQuest building, but the Board wanted that for storage. Neuzil said the choice between the CarQuest site and the water plant was different than the choice between CarQuest and the County Farm. Stutsman said that a decision needed to be made, and that from a public safety and County interest perspective, Stutsman could see no better use than having three acres out of 180 acres of public-designated land on the County Farm. R. Sullivan said that he had discussed matters with the Chatham Oaks Board of Directors who did not see any obstacles to having the communication center on the County Farm property. The Board agreed to place the item on a future formal agenda. Davidson said the committee was seeking an answer sooner than later because they were at a point in the design process where a specific site needed to be identified.
R. Sullivan said the advisory board’s membership was already well laid-out and that the Sheriff and Ambulance Director would both have designees. R. Sullivan said that the policy board’s members should consist of elected officials and/or executive level officials. R. Sullivan said that Pulkrabek was interested in serving in one of the positions, and said that Davidson, Bailey, and the rest of the committee wanted to see it done so appointments should be made the following week. Davidson reiterated that according to the policy, if the Sheriff as an elected official was named to the policy board, then he is not eligible to be named to the advisory committee. Stutsman suggested naming Harney and Pulkrabek as policy board members from the County, citing their extensive work on the project. Neuzil agreed. Harney stated that he was willing to serve on the advisory committee.
R. Sullivan said that on a 4-2 vote the Compensation Board recommended a 6% increase for all elected officials. Stutsman asked how the procedure works, and if the Board has to lower other elected official's salaries as well if they lower their own. Neuzil replied that it had to be equal. R. Sullivan said the Board could not raise the recommendation and any reduction had to be by equal amounts. Stutsman said that if the Board lowers their raise, they would be lowering the raises of the rest of the elected officials by the same amount. R. Sullivan agreed.
Stutsman said in light of the economy, a budget which is pushing the limit of taxpayer's tolerance, and the bargaining unit raises, she would support a 3% increase for the compensation of elected officials. Harney asked what that would do to deputies. Lyness said that would limit deputy's raises to 3%, but because of changes in legislation they could go from 80% to 85% of the elected official's salary. R. Sullivan said deputies are automatically getting a 5% raise since their salary could go from 80% to 85%, which is already budgeted. Lyness said that change was for first deputies and only if the elected official recommends it. R. Sullivan said the budgets that the Board has seen from the Auditor, Recorder, and Treasurer included that increase. Lyness said whatever the percentage; a 3% increase in the elected official's salary would limit deputies to 3% as well.
Stutsman said that they determined this year the deputies are eligible for longevity, which has always been an issue before. Stutsman noted that this year the Legislature changed the ruling so deputies are now eligible for longevity pay, just like all County employees. Neuzil said most employees are getting a 3.5% increase, but when longevity and step increases are factored in, the increase comes out closer to 6% as one of the Compensation Board members noted at the Compensation Board meeting. Neuzil said that is where the Compensation Board came up with the justification for a 6% recommendation.
Harney said he doesn’t care if he gets a raise, and that he does not need one, but he has concerns about the Auditor, Recorder, and Treasurer getting fair raises. He said that their pay is pretty low compared to other offices. Harney said he has a problem with some recent newspaper editorials and contacts that he has had, although it has been only a very few individual negative contacts. Harney said that it seems that the Compensation Board's recommendation was decisive, and they did it weighing a lot of things to decide what that recommendation should be, which he agrees with. On the other hand, Harney said that the Board has been criticized highly for it, but at the University, the Campus Security Director’s pay went from $130,000 to $146,000, and some City officials have received 6% raises. He said that somewhere justice isn’t being done in terms of who was being criticized for what. Harney reiterated that he doesn’t care if he gets a raise, but he thinks that all of the attention has come because of what is happening in Linn County, adding two Supervisors earning $80,000. R. Sullivan said this was a very public process. Harney agreed and said he doesn’t mind that, that it is only fair.
Neuzil said that as the Budget Coordinator pointed out, because the County needs to hit the cap in the general fund, and the majority of the funding for elected officials comes out of the general fund, that these raises would not be passed on to taxpayers. He explained that if the Board chose to reduce the recommendation that would be money that would be used to pay off the Health and Human Services Building. The County would still be taxing at the same rate. Stutsman said it sends a message to the community. Neuzil said that was what the issue comes down to, and he has avoided this question in the past by simply supporting whatever the Compensation Board has suggested. If the Compensation Board recommends a 1% or a 6% raise, Neuzil has always said that it is citizens making the decision who look at the impact of what the elected officials and their deputies are doing, and they make that recommendation. He said this is a sensitive issue that is thrown out and they advocate for, and respect everyone's decision, and in either case they would have people saying they deserve the raise or don't deserve it. Neuzil said that he wants to make it clear that he respects Harney’s and Stutsman’s decision on this. Neuzil said this is a sensitive issue and probably one of the most difficult decisions for an elected official to make because of the personal benefit. Neuzil said that every time an elected official votes for this, they are voting for themselves. Neuzil said that when the Board votes they try to do what is in the best interest of the community, yet this is one of those votes that is a bit a self-serving, and probably why it is one of the most difficult decisions. Neuzil said that he has left the decision in the hands of the Compensation Board’s and not his.
Meyers said that one thing they need to look at is the future and pointed out that if these salaries are not competitive, what types of person will be running for these offices. Meyers said that he came across an interesting post on one of the local newspaper’s websites where one person made the comment that he was thinking of running for an elected office until he looked at the salary and found that he already made more money than nine out of the ten elected officials in Johnson County, so it was not financially feasible for him to run. Meyers said the editorial in one of the local newspapers is probably what set off a lot of this firestorm with the suggestion that for the Board to accept the 6% raise, they should go full-time. He said that since that came out no one has been able to explain to him what it means to go from 3/4 time to full-time. Meyers said that he isn’t sure what any of the Board members would be doing differently than what they are doing at the present time. He said that all of them already put in a lot of hours that are scattered across every day or every week. Meyers said that this week alone he has had two evenings where he has gotten home between 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., and the same thing will happen to him tonight and tomorrow night. Meyers said a Supervisor in this size of county should be paid on par with the Auditor, Recorder, and Treasurer, and if they went full-time that would mean a $20,000 immediate raise. He said he is not willing to go there, and personally he would prefer this to be a 3/4 time job so that it leaves open other options. Meyers said that even if the Board were 3/4 time, they would need an immediate $2,000 or so just to get to 75% of the salary of the Auditor, Treasurer, and Recorder, before any discussion of a 6% raise.
R. Sullivan said there will be a strategic planning meeting on February 19, 2008, and because the Compensation Board raised the issue of whether or not the Board is full-time versus 3/4 time, the Board should discuss the issue. R. Sullivan placed the item on the February 19, 2008 strategic planning agenda so that the Board can begin that conversation. He said that conversation could certainly impact what the Board decides to talk about next year at this time.
Harney said that he is not in this position for the money, he is here to serve the public, which is what he took the oath of office to do. Harney will do it whether they get a pay raise or not as he enjoys what he is doing and plans to do it again, if he can.
R. Sullivan said he expects the recommendation to be on February, 14, 2008 formal agenda, and asked other elected officials for their thoughts. Pulkrabek said that one of the things they need to look at is when the Board recruits department heads, they consider the county's population rank. Johnson County is the fifth biggest county in the state and will likely be fourth in 2010. Pulkrabek said that to look at the elected official’s salary rank and try and have them comparable to where the other counties fall, currently they are all fifth or higher. Right now, Pulkrabek explained, he and the Auditor are fifth, and Johnson County's other elected officials are fourth or higher. Pulkrabek said that there is a good reason to try and maintain that level. He noted that it is what Human Resources recommends, and they talked about it during the recent hiring process of the Emergency Management Director. Pulkrabek said that they also need to look at some of things that Harney pointed out with Iowa City. Pulkrabek said that he feels strongest about his Chief Deputy who earns less than Iowa City's Animal Control Officer. Pulkrabek said that he absolutely believes that the Chief Deputy's job is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the county. He said that when he advocates for a raise it is less so for himself and more so for his Chief Deputy, who is tied to 85% of the Sheriff’s salary. Pulkrabek said he understands that the unions got somewhere between 3.5% to 4%, but when longevity is included it's 5% to 6%. Pulkrabek said that the Compensation Board is appointed, had a frank discussion, and went through the difficult talking points, and there is value to accepting what they advocate for. Pulkrabek said that he understands Harney’s position of not wanting to advocate for a raise, but that is why the Compensation Board is there.
Lyness said that what they don’t want to have is a collapse from management so that the deputies in the Treasurer’s and Auditor’s Office creep closer to the other employees. Lyness would recommend that their raises at least be equivalent to what is being given to the bargaining unit employees. Lyness said that she is going to leave the decision up to the Board. She said that one of her big concerns is making sure she raises all of her employees’ salaries because she looks at some of her new attorneys who are having a really hard time paying off student loans. Lyness said that she is not just interested in the top, but would really like to use the money to raise all of her attorneys’ salaries, which will hopefully be done in the salary survey in the next year through Human Resources.
Painter said the Compensation Board did a tremendous job, as always. She said that she would like to note for the benefit of the public, because this has become something of an issue, that the Compensation Board is sometimes described as a rubber stamp group. Painter said she would like to take some issue with that. Painter said that she is devoted to appointing people to the Compensation Board who frequently question and talk very openly about defined benefits, health benefits, excellent retirement prospects, and the kinds of things that are slipping away from a lot of people in the economy. Painter said that she prides herself on appointing people to the Compensation Board who do question how things are proceeding and pull things in from different angles. Painter noted that the whole group does that and everybody has appointees who raise different questions, who point to different things pro and con. She said that the conversation has been good and any perception that anybody is engaged in regarding reaching into the till in some unsavory way to benefit themselves is absolutely not correct. Painter said that having said that, the points raised earlier are also absolutely correct; it is a very tough decision for the Board to have to make and she has always respected that. She said that the Board is sitting there approving their own raises and everyone else’s, which has to be the most difficult thing in the world, but it also provides for transparency. Painter said that they do need to take advantage of that transparency. Painter said that some of the things she likes to talk about are the professionalism of people in the elected offices. She said that she doesn’t know that they always do the best job but she can give a couple of illustrations. Painter said that in the time since she has been Recorder they have seen an enormous increase in the amount of work that they have to process, and therefore, in return, an enormous increase in the amount of revenues they bring into the County. Painter stated that in the mid 1990s approximately $450,000 to $600,000 might come into the County through the Recorder’s Office. She said that to make that money for operating expenses, supplies, any electronic equipment they needed, they would spend approximately $65,000 to $70,000. After they took the initiative to use and leverage new technologies, their operating expense is less than half of that. Painter said that from 1995 to 2008 what it cost them to make the money they make for the County has been cut in half, which is great news for taxpayers. At the same time, because of developments in the economy, what the Recorder’s Office brings into the County has gone from $400,000-$600,000 to a little over a million dollars a year. Painter said that she doesn’t want the good news about professional development, strategic planning, people doing more with less money, and people cutting positions through attrition as they evolve their office, to get lost when they are having this conversation because that is good news for the people in Johnson County. At the same time, Painter said, they have an obligation to be aware in different ways than private sector people do. Painter said that symbolism is important, and what people see happening in the overall economy is making them very nervous right now, even if it’s not effecting Johnson County locally as much as some places. Painter said that it’s in the headlines, everybody sees it, and it creates an anxiety or sense of tension. She said that when they see what looks like a fairly dramatic increase in salaries, it bothers them. Painter said that they do have an obligation not to be tone deaf on the issue. Painter said that she appreciates the conversation that the Board is having, but even more she appreciates that the level of professionalism has generated some tremendous benefits for Johnson County. She said that her comfort level is in line with what she is hearing. She said that the CPI from December 2007 was 4%, so the 3% to 4% range is fine with her, but anything the Board does is fine with her. Painter then thanked the Board.
R. Sullivan said that the total salaries for the ten elected officials is $666,000. He said that a 6% raise suggested by the Compensation Board is just under $40,000. He said that if the Board decided to go at zero that would be $40,000 that would go towards the Health and Human Services Building. R. Sullivan said that if the Board would go somewhere in the middle there would be $20,000 in raises and $20,000 to go to the Health and Human Services Building.
Neuzil asked if R. Sullivan wanted some direction now before the vote next week. R. Sullivan explained that next week the Board would have to have a motion and a second to vote. Neuzil said that they’ve done it two ways since he has been on the Board. He explained that the last two years the Board has taken the recommendation of the Compensation Board. Neuzil said that before that the Board all put a number out, divided it by five, and that was the number used. He said that he is fine with either way. R. Sullivan said his preference would be to discuss it. He said that if he were to write down 50% and other Board members were to write down zero, the number would be skewed. Neuzil noted that Stutsman suggested 3%. R. Sullivan said that he agrees with Stutsman because it is what the rest of the County employees got, although he knows that there is step and longevity that elected officials don’t get, but elected officials can frankly just walk out the door. He said that there are a lot of advantages to being an elected official like not having to have vacation leave approved. He said that there are benefits to the elected position that other folks don’t get. R. Sullivan said that he wants to stay consistent with the unions. Secondly, he said that the only reason to not do that would be if the County’s rankings were other than they should be, but over the last couple of years the elected officials are sitting at number 4 or 5 in the State, which is where they should be. R. Sullivan said that he feels good about the playing field as it is now. Neuzil asked what the average was for bargaining units. R. Sullivan said 3.5% was the average. Stutsman said she threw out 3% as a starting point. R. Sullivan said that they are certainly in the same ball park.
Compensation Board Member Janelle Rettig said that not all of the counties in Johnson County’s ranking are finished, and so they can’t make a comparison, but some are finished, and it looks like most are around 4%. She said that if the point is to keep Johnson County in the ranking, the Board might want to be conscious of the fact that the other counties aren’t finished. R. Sullivan said that he understands that Johnson County could slip from 4th to 5th, but he feels it is important to be in the ballpark.
Neuzil asked if the number on the table was 3% or 3.5%. Stutsman said that there are two Board members for 3%. R. Sullivan said he does not see a big difference between 3% or 3.5%, but he does not want it to be higher than 3.5%. Neuzil said the difference was whether elected officials and deputies should get less than what the unions are getting. R. Sullivan said that was why he suggested 3.5%. Stutsman said she could go along with 3.5%. She said that another thing that they forget is that County employees and elected officials have a tremendous benefit package. Stutsman said that they are so fortunate to have the health benefits that they have. She said that she feels so fortunate to have a position where she can have health care. She said that it is a real concern and she takes that into consideration too.
Meyers said in general he agrees with Neuzil that the Compensation Board goes through an effort to make recommendations and he would tend to accept their recommendation and go with it. He said that Painter makes a good point though about not being tone deaf to concerns that people have out there. He said that there certainly are a lot of those concerns this year so he would be willing to back away from the Compensation Board’s recommendation and go with something in the 3.5% range. Harney said that was fine.
Neuzil left at 12:00 p.m.
R. Sullivan said that this issue would be placed on the February 14, 2008 formal agenda where the Board will have a formal motion. R. Sullivan said that as Neuzil pointed out, the budget is already set and it is just a matter of moving the funds to or from a project. Stutsman said that because Rettig is present, she wanted to note that the Compensation Board does a very diligent job, but it is a recommendation and as an elected official she has to consider many things when making this decision. R. Sullivan said that he would like to give the Compensation Board all of the credit in the world, as he knows how hard they work, and the Board's decision is not intended to be dismissive.
R. Sullivan said the Board was going on the district lobbying day on February 20, 2008, and he would like to come up with three or four primary issues. Stutsman said the Board definitely needed to give their feelings about adequate funding for trails and the impact it has in Johnson County. R. Sullivan said that was clearly one item he would like to see addressed, and mentioned seeing a statistic that only one out of every 100 trail requests can actually be funded. He said that it was simply not adequate and thus a priority for the people of Johnson County.
R. Sullivan said Neuzil had been working with Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities (MH/DD) Director Kris Artley on a white page, and that mental health funding was ISAC’s top issue. Stutsman said she felt the legislators were looking to the Board for feedback. Meyers said Spenler indicated that there was some movement in the legislature on the IPERS issue. Harney said he worked on the issue of record storage and retention, and he’d like to be a bit more firm on electronic storage. Harney said he did not anticipate a change in the road use tax formula.
R. Sullivan said that if they went with MH/DD issues, trail funding, and records retention the Board would have three issues. He said that four or five issues would likely be overwhelming to ISAC and suggested on focusing on those three issues and preparing them for ISAC Legislative Lobby Day. Stutsman agreed, and R. Sullivan said the Board would need statistics to flush out.
Rettig said that the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) requested $3 million for state recreational trails, and noted that two years ago the funds had been doubled from $1 million to $2 million. She said that the $3 million did not make it into Governor Chet Culver’s budget recommendation, so she assumed the Board would request that it would be the DOT’s recommendation of $3,000,000. Rettig said that the other source of trails funding is Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP), and stated that the full funding of REAP is being discussed with the bottle bill. She said the two issues did not have to be melded together, and suggested the Board could advocate for the DOT’s recommendation of $3 million of trails funding plus the full funding for REAP, without taking a position on the bottle bill as being the source of the full funding for REAP. Rettig said it would be an increase of about $4 million, and possibly fund the trail from Tiffin to Kent Park.
Harney asked if the Board wanted to take a stand on the bottle bill. Rettig said she would not advocate one way or the other but noted that not all of the funding goes to REAP. She credited Culver with getting the discussion about the bill going, and said the Board could advocate for full funding of REAP without taking a position on the current recommendation of the Bottle Bill.
R. Sullivan said the Board only needed to appoint one member to the County Trails Advisory Committee. Since Linn County was no longer participating in the Trails Advisory Committee, the Board had essentially created an ‘at-large’ position and that Amy Bouska had support from a majority of the Board.
R. Sullivan said because of the resignation of Mike McKay from the Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board, they were able to fill an at-large position with anyone. The Board received two applications and both persons were willing and able to step into McKay’s former position.
R. Sullivan said that at the last JCCOG meeting it was decided that there needed to be a committee to discuss public transportation, and noted that there was a lot of discussion about the Metropolitan Transit Authority, extending bus service into North Liberty and other areas, and cooperation between the different transit systems. R. Sullivan said that Johnson County Council of Governments Executive Director John Yapp is looking for each entity to appoint someone to serve on a committee.
Stutsman asked if the appointed person had to be an elected official or could be anyone. R. Sullivan said they wanted it to be at the elected official level as it was a policy level discussion rather then a technical committee. Stutsman said she would be willing to serve on the committee. The Board agreed to place the appointment on a future agenda.
Adjourned at 12:14 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2008
By John Deeth, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on March 24, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.