MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 19, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Conservation Director Harry Graves: Proposed Conservation Bond Issue.................................. 1
Assistant Planner Josh Busard: ICLEI Update and Conference................................................. 8
Facilities Director David Kempf: Project Updates................................................................... 11
Board of Supervisors: Small Cities Meeting and Discussion of JCCOG Results......................... 14
Board of Supervisors: JCCOG Workforce Housing Initiatives.................................................. 15
Board of Supervisors: Recycling Initiative for Rural Subdivisions.............................................. 15
Board of Supervisors: Chamber of Commerce Sticker............................................................. 16
Board of Supervisors: Meeting Agenda Items......................................................................... 16
Board of Supervisors: Internal Processes................................................................................ 17
Comments from the Public.................................................................................................... 17
Board of Supervisors: Full vs. Part-Time Employment Status of Supervisors............................. 17
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:01 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Conservation Director Harry Graves opened by stating that he wished to talk about the land preservation ballot measure that the Board discussed on February 6, 2008. Graves said that Johnson County is one of the most well watered counties in the State. The Cedar River and the Iowa River run through the county and with them comes many opportunities for preservation. Graves said that as they get further in the study, water quality issues are issues that resonate with people and have also received the strongest responses.
Graves pointed out that like most of Iowa, Johnson County was a major farming community. Graves also went into a brief narrative about how Johnson County has gone from being a rural area to a much more urban area. Graves said that Johnson County is the second fastest growing and fifth largest county in the State, as it grew 5.5% in the last census. Since that time, it has increased 5.4%. The current population is 118,038 is projected to increase to 140,000 by 2020. Graves stated that woodlands, savannas, prairies, and wetlands continue to be lost for the development of commercial purposes, such as housing and parking lots throughout the county. Graves pointed out that where natural areas are destroyed, they are gone forever. Graves said this is what started peoples' expressions of loss and concern of destruction of the natural environment, that green space is needed. Graves said that element is what started them on the process. Graves says that there is a trend that the environment is of equal or greater value than the gray infrastructure. Graves says that public funds should be raised quickly to preserve significant, remaining land before it is lost to development.
Graves said the Johnson County Conservation Board has a Code-mandated responsibility to address the growing urgency to preserve natural lands. Graves stated that Trust for Public Land (TPL) has been involved in most of the preservation efforts throughout the country. Graves said that with the assistance of Iowa National Heritage Foundation President Mark Ackelson, they have been making contacts with TPL Representative David Carter, who spoke to the Board on February 6, 2008.
Graves addressed the question of who is paying for TPL. Graves said that all of the TPL services have been funded by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. Graves reported that the Conservation Board had the Minneapolis Regional Director of TPL come to their March 2007 meeting. Graves said that TPL suggested that the Conservation Board work with David Carter from their office in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Graves discussed how Carter's team conducted a feasibility study for Johnson County to research long-term funding options. Graves said that General Obligation (GO) bonds were determined to be the most economically prudent bonds and require 60% voter approval. The Code of Iowa provides in Sections 331 and 350 that on the request of the County Conservation Board, the Board of Supervisors may issue general county purpose bonds. Graves went on to mention that the Code states that the acquisition and development of land for public purposes including parks, playgrounds, and other recreational or conservation purposes be managed by the County Conservation Board and are express purposes for the funding.
Graves says that from the feasibility study it was concluded that a public opinion survey needed to be conducted. American Viewpoint of Alexandria, Virginia, was commissioned to do that and did so in October of 2007. They contacted 400 voters who have voted in the last two elections. Graves said that the public opinion results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9%. The statistical sample of 400 in a population of 118,000 is a huge number. R. Sullivan commented that they completed 400 interviews, in which probably 1,000 people contacted. Graves contended that at least 850 voters were contacted and that of those, 400 completed the interview. Graves stated that currently a strong majority of those respondents would support a $21 million-dollar ballot measure to be administrated for the Johnson County Conservation Board. Graves reported that 60% of the voters said they would support the bond referendum measure and 28% said they would oppose it, and those numbers increased as they received more information. Graves said a wide variety of issues were identified, but those that resonated most strongly with people were water quality and protecting the Cedar and Iowa River, as well as lakes and streams. Graves mentioned that also important were protecting existing green areas, forests, and natural land from development. Improving air quality and providing new hiking, biking, and walking trails were also important. Graves said that if the Board were to look at these various areas of support, they would see there is an opportunity to link these all together. Graves said that in the protection of a water corridor, there is also the opportunity to protect green areas that can then be used in future trail routes.
Graves said that preserving natural areas is something that attracts people to certain areas to reside. Graves mentioned that last week's paper reported that Iowa City is the tenth smartest county in the country, with Boulder, Colorado being the first. Graves said a $20 million dollar bond issue would cost the owner of a $100,000 house $27 a year. Graves said that amounted to $2.25 a month. For an acre of farmland, it would cost 21 cents per year for 20 years. Graves said that most of the funds will be matched whenever possible. Graves said he has spent most of his life working with grant funding sources at the federal, state, and private level.
Graves said that other forums will be held for citizen input on this matter. Graves commented that the Conservation Board has a 5 Year Plan, which is pretty much universal with other County operations. Graves mentioned that PPO will continue to assist them, and a master plan will be completed in five-year increments. Graves went on to say that they believe in informed citizens who understand the wisdom of strategic land preservation and the importance of maintaining biodiversity and sustaining a natural community. Graves said that it is just as important to preserve green areas, forests, wetlands, rivers, and springs as it is to preserve building infrastructures. Graves said if this measure is approved, it will be included on the ballot for the November 4, 2008 election. Graves mentioned that it appears that the number of people that are going to turn out for that election will be the largest turnout in many years. Graves stated that it requires a 60% super majority, and the people will have spoken at that time. Graves said the ballot measure has a far greater economic impact than the $20 million. He said it is an investment in the future and a down payment for tomorrow's generation. Graves also stated that it makes for a healthier, cleaner, and more sustainable living environment.
R. Sullivan suggested that County Attorney Janet Lyness join Graves for the question section. R. Sullivan mentioned that there has been discussion about the bond attorney and asked what the next steps would be if the Board decided to proceed with this measure. He also asked if there would be signature requirements. Lyness replied that there are different ways to get an issue on the ballot. Lyness said that citizens could petition the Board by getting a certain number of petitions to put the issue on the ballot. Lyness stated that the Conservation Board could also petition the Board to put the issue on the ballot. Lyness said the Conservation Board does not have to collect 4,000 petitions, they can just request a petition of the Board. R. Sullivan stated that is what they have already done. R. Sullivan said that if the Board decided to allow the measure to be put on the ballot, petitions and signatures from citizens will not be needed. Lyness agreed. R. Sullivan commented that citizens could try to force the issue, if the Board turns down the Conservation Board's request by trying to get 4,000 signatures. Lyness confirmed this. Lyness then said that there are different provisions in the Iowa Code for doing this.
Lyness stated that she talked to the Bond Attorney Bob Josten last week because this is a different kind of thing that hasn't previously been done in the State of Iowa. Lyness also said it may not be that expensive, but it could be, so they must do research so they can figure out the federal tax standards. Lyness said it could cost up to $20,000 in legal fees for dealing with the bond issue. Lyness said the County always hires bond counsel. Lyness said that Josten is willing to take the bond issue on and will be doing some research to find out what needs to happen. Lyness said one of the issues that Josten brought up is being clear about what land the Conservation Board is looking to purchase with the money from the bond issue. Lyness said she has talked to Graves about that as well. Lyness said they anticipate that it will not be something that is easy because it hasn't been done before in Iowa.
Stutsman asked if they would hire bond counsel immediately after they decide to put it on the ballot or if they would wait until after the bond issue passes. Lyness replied that the County would need the hire bond counsel right away to approve the bond language. Lyness also mentioned that Josten would develop the bond language and send it back to her so that things would be reviewed by her office. Lyness said that Josten works with Springstead Financial Consultants, who issues the bonds and looks at the language to be included. Lyness said that the hardest part is figuring out what the costs will be, which has to be in the bond issue as well. Lyness said they have to figure out what has to be included and what the County can use the land for. She said that they will want to make sure that the County uses the land in a way that would still exempt them from paying federal taxes on it. Lyness said this is a unique issue that could potentially cost the County a lot of money.
Stutsman asked how long it would be before the bond issue could be brought up again if it doesn't pass. Stutsman went on to say that people were wondering if it would be six months or a year before it could be put back on a ballot. Lyness responded that although she is not aware of any time restrictions, she would discourage the Board from putting it immediately back on the ballot until they found out why it didn't pass and what had changed. Lyness cautioned that resources would be wasted if there is no support for it, and if there is something that can be changed.
Stutsman asked where the $20 million figure came from. Graves explained that the figure was based on the number used by the polling firm in their surveys. Graves said that from their survey questions, $20 million was determined to be a sweet-spot. Graves reported that the survey asked a question regarding respondent support for a $10 million bond as opposed to a $20 million one. Support changed only 2%. Stutsman asked if they had considered starting at $20 million. Graves replied that they did. R. Sullivan commented that polling firm must have asked about support for a $30 million bond to know that support fell off a little. Graves stated that he didn't know if they asked about a $30 million bond or not. He said that based on their calculations, a $20 million bond received the most support from respondents. Graves said that if the bond issue fails, questions would need to be asked to address the failure.
Graves mentioned that the cost of the project, including the legal services, can be paid for out of the bond. Graves said the general cost of the project for essential County purposes includes legal services. R. Sullivan asked if the Conservation Board could reimburse the Board for the cost of the bond counsel, if the bond passes. Lyness explained that money obtained from the bond would go back into the General Fund. Stutsman asked if the Conservation Board would determine how the money would be spent. Lyness replied that legal costs must come out of the bond money. Lyness said if the bond passes, the Conservation Board would have to pay the cost. R. Sullivan asked if the Board would be paying Josten if the Board agrees to put the bond on the November 4, 2008 ballot. He also asked if the Conservation Board would then repay the Board for these legal costs with the bond money. Lyness said they would check with Josten about the issue, but that they would be paying him regardless. R. Sullivan agreed. He asked if the Board could get reimbursed. Lyness said they would have to see how Josten does his billing because they would want his legal fees to come out of the bond. R. Sullivan commented that Carter said he was more than willing to help Graves with the project whenever needed. R. Sullivan said that he wondered if it would be appropriate for Carter to sit down with Mr. Josten as well. Graves responded that Carter will be at the March 6, 2008 meeting. Lyness interjected that they could talk on the phone as well. R. Sullivan said that it seems as though some of the things Josten is concerned about have been done in other states. R. Sullivan acknowledged that state law can be very different, but thought that Carter could talk about projects that have been done elsewhere.
Graves said that the Code does address bonding and County Conservation purposes that he emailed to the Board. Meyers asked if the cost to taxpayers was figured assuming that the bond would cost $1 million per year. Graves responded that was correct. He said that this would preclude willing sellers and that no condemnation of any kind would be used to acquire land. Graves stated that land will be acquired as it becomes available. Meyers asked if they would start taxing immediately, if the bond were to pass. Graves responded that they will start collecting the tax, but won't sell the bond. Stutsman asked where the bond money would go. She wanted to know if County Treasurer Tom Kriz would set up a special fund. Graves responded that they would set up a special fund and that the County would get interest off of the bonds. Graves said that they would get into federal tax issues when they sell the bonds and collect interest from them.
Meyers stated that hypothetically the $27 per $100,000 property value could decrease over the 20 year period if the County tax base grew. Graves said that if evaluation increases, the cost could go down. R. Sullivan said theoretically all the money could get spent all in one year, or they could wait 19 years and spend it all in one year, or a similar combination. Stutsman said that it could be spent a little at a time. Lyness said that once they sell the bonds, they have to use them by a certain period of time to ensure they don't have to pay taxes. Meyers asked if the Conservation Board is required to identify the property they hope to purchase, in the ballot language. Graves replied that he doesn't know if they will need to do that or not. He stated that he fears doing that as he feels it would have a negative impact on the measure getting passed. Graves pointed out that funds were levied in the TIFF Districts for public purpose. Graves said that this is the public purpose under Section 350 of the Code of Iowa. Graves stated these are several types of land that the Conservation Department is interested in purchasing, but that they cannot be divulged at this time. Graves said that doing so would impact the price. Lyness commented that there may also be problems with people not wanting to support the project because they do not know what lands are being talked about. Lyness said there is nothing to preclude the Conservation Board from working with landowners on conditional agreements. She stated that is something that she believes the voters will want to hear about. She feels that voters will be more favorable to the measure if there are specific parcels of interest are listed.
Graves said that they have two parcels that they are working on right now. He said that one might necessitate the need to acquire adjoining property in the future, but the deal has not been worked out yet. Graves said they are considering remnant areas that are scattered around the county. Meyers asked if the Conservation Board will be required to receive approval from the Board before purchasing any land. Graves said that all of the land that the Conservation Department manages is owned by the County. He said that any land acquisitions will have to be brought to the Board's attention. Lyness stated that she believes the Conservation Board can acquire property, but that only the Board can sell it. Stutsman said that the Board does not have to approve land acquisitions. Graves said that land is acquired in the name of the County. Graves said that as a practical matter, it is very important that the Board is informed of anything the Conservation Board does.
Harney commented that he was still not clear with the bonds. He wondered what would happen if the Conservation Board wanted to buy a partial property. He asked if they would wait to sell bonds until they knew how much the property would cost. Graves stated that was correct. Graves said that as he understood it, after the cost is negotiated at appraised value, bonds would be sold by the County Treasurer. Graves said there are opportune times to do this; however, it is his understanding that bonds cannot be sold until the purchase is evident. Neuzil asked if the Conservation Board would collect a certain amount in taxes each year. Graves responded no. Lyness corrected Graves and stated that a certain amount of taxes will be collected every year for 20 years; however, bonds would not be sold until the purchase of land was eminent.
Meyers asked what would happen if $1 million in taxes was collected, but the Conservation Board wanted to acquire land that cost $3 million. He asked if they would then sell bonds equaling the other $2 million needed. Graves agreed. Harney asked who would control the interest accrued from the taxes. Stutsman responded that the Board would control how to spend the interest. Graves commented that the Board would levy the tax. Stutsman said that currently the Board takes that interest and puts it in the general fund. Graves replied that this wouldn't be any different than any previous bonds that were sold.
R. Sullivan asked Lyness if the Board needed to give the Conservation Board direction with moving forward, which would include hiring bond counsel and putting the item on the November 2008 ballot. Lyness cautioned that the Board should not vote on whether to put the issue on the ballot until they have the proper bond language to build on. Lyness reported that County Auditor Tom Slockett said this would not be necessary until August 27, 2008. R. Sullivan agreed and stated that sometime in August of 2008 they will need to move forward. Lyness recommended that the Board give the Conservation Board an idea of whether or not they should spend time on this or if they should be looking for possible land to acquire.
Lyness also recommended that the Board hold a meeting with the public if they wished to before the end of August. R. Sullivan asked if the Board should put this issue on a future informal agenda. R. Sullivan asked the other Board members if they wished to put the issue on a formal or informal agenda. Stutsman responded that formal would be the best. Harney replied that he felt the matter should be discussed during an informal meeting to allow public input. R. Sullivan suggested they discuss the matter during an informal meeting and then vote on it during a formal one. Stutsman asked if there should be a week in between the formal and informal voting. R. Sullivan decided that that the Board could put the item on the informal agenda for February 21, 2007, and then formally vote during the March 6, 2008 meeting. Neuzil clarified that the Board would be voting on a few options during the March 6, 2008 meeting. He said that the Board could either accept the Conservation Department's recommendation and allow it to be on the ballot or allow the Conservation Department to move forward without voting on whether to place it on the ballot. Lyness stated that the Board could also deny the Conservation Board's request. Graves remarked that getting the appropriate number of residents to sign a petition would be rather difficult, if the Board denied the Conservation Board's request.
R. Sullivan stated that the item will be put on the agenda for the informal meeting on February 21, 2008. He commented that he doesn't believe a full discussion will be needed, as it seems that people have most of their questions answered. Stutsman then asked if they couldn't put it on informal agenda for the February 28, 2008 meeting. Stutsman commented that she understood that Neuzil would be absent that meeting, but felt that it would allow the public more time to make arrangements to attend the meeting. Lyness stated that Carter will be in Iowa City on March 6, 2008 and recommended placing the item on the March 6, 2008 informal agenda. R. Sullivan mentioned that the plan has already been reported in the Cedar Rapids Gazette and the Iowa City Press-Citizen. He stated that he had already received calls and emails from the public and felt that they were aware of the issue. R. Sullivan also stated that he doesn't want to cost the Conservation Board a month of work. Lyness stated that she suspects the Conservation Board will continue to look at property that they want to acquire and is not sure that it time is a big issue right now. Graves stated that it will be funding driven. Lyness said the Conservation Board meets once a month and that their next scheduled meetings are on February 20, 2008 and March 19, 2008. R. Sullivan wanted to know if it would be appropriate to discuss the matter during the informal meetings on February 21, 2008 and February 28, 2008 and then vote on it during the March 6, 2008 Formal Meeting. The Board agreed.
Meyers asked if some of the land could be used for trails. Graves responded it could. He said that the land could be used for both conservation and recreational purposes. Graves said there was the opportunity to accomplish a multiplicity of things in acquired locations. Graves said that connectivity is the hallmark of the successful trail grant application, something that connects to something else. Meyers then asked if it was a trail alongside a reconstructed road, such as Mehaffey Bridge Road. Graves responded that it would not be a trail. Stutsman said that this would be a dedicated separated trail. Graves said that unless they were part of one of the land preservation efforts, that would have to be a decision that have to be worked out, but Graves said this will mainly be a land preservation effort first and foremost.
Meyers asked if this has ever been done in Iowa. Graves said that in 1970 a bond issue for the Conservation Board was voted on to acquire what is now Kent Park. Graves said those bonds were repaid out of the levy. Graves said, however, there has never been anything of this magnitude done. Meyers commented that the precedent was set by previous Board members. Graves said Johnson County has historically been leaders in virtually all of these things, and certainly there is an opportunity to lead on this project also. Graves said that the green spaces will be gone in time, and that there is opportunity for preservation.
Stutsman asked if they have calculated how much acreage they can buy with $20 million. Graves said that he has a lot of information on land prices. Graves mentioned that CSR was the gold standard for land prices in Iowa; however, most of the conservation land has been non or low productive lands. Graves stated that with the development factor involved, land with soil capabilities is the highest valued land. Graves stated that they are looking at quite a spread in acreage between various locations in the core compared to southern Johnson County. R. Sullivan stated that if they paid $5,000 an acre they could buy 4,000 acres. He said that if they pay $10,000 an acre, they can buy 2,000 acres. R. Sullivan commented that the money would not go as far if they built trails on any of the acquired land. Graves said trails cost $100,000 per mile plus bridges. Stutsman asked if any of the money could be used for trail maintenance. Graves responded that the money can only be used for land purchases. Lyness stated that Josten will look into other possibilities for spending. R. Sullivan commented that they would try to draw money from matching funds. Graves said with the exception of root grants, there are no grants that do not require some percentage of local ownership, which is typically from 25%-50%. Graves said the more they can leverage their money, the further they can make it go, which could result in more grants. Lyness stated that the bond counsel will assist in researching what types of things the bond money can be spent on.
Harney asked if agricultural land costs 17 cents. Graves replied that agricultural land is 21 cents and originally 26 cents. He said that this is a golden opportunity to preserve land as opposed to develop it. Graves said that there is support and sentiment for preservation. He said the ultimate test will be the vote.
Assistant Planner Josh Busard stated that he was going to give an update about Johnson County's standing in its pursuit to become more sustainable through the Cool Counties Initiative. Busard said that he has enrolled himself and R. Sullivan to participate in a Web NR training session to help with the web initiative on February 27 and 28, 2008. Busard said the first milestone is conducting a baseline greenhouse gas emission inventory. The next milestones are to set an emission goal and action plan and to implement and monitor the goal. Busard will begin introduction training for the software on February 27, 2008. Busard also mentioned that he has worked with Network Support Technician Fred Brown to download the software. Busard said that on February 28, 2008 he will concentrate on modeling different scenarios for the software. These include scenarios such as how well the County purchases and replaces hybrid vehicles and how doing so would effect green house emissions.
Busard said that there is an opportunity for him to attend the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Local Action Summit in Albuquerque, New Mexico on May 13-16, 2008. Busard said it would be an excellent opportunity to meet with other local governments and counties that are undertaking the same projects and goals as Johnson County. Busard said there will also be further training opportunities at the Local Action Summit using the Cool County software. This will amount to more training than the two-hour conference calls that will take place on February 27 and 28, 2008. Busard said they will also discuss ways to meet and obtain the final four milestones of the Cool County Initiative. Busard mentioned there will be tours and breakout sessions that will cover Federal policy updates, in addition to how some communities are becoming more sustainable through various financing options.
Stutsman asked if Busard will be far enough along in the process to get benefits from the conference. Busard responded that he believes so. He mentioned that he has gone through and started working on the software on his own. Busard explained that there is a lot of information needed for the County to meet the first milestone. Busard said they need to find a baseline greenhouse admission inventory for the county. He said he is just taking the County's daily operations right now. Busard said the first survey will help him gather employee commuting habits and data. Busard said this data is needed to determine the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by County employees as they travel to work. Busard said from that point, the County can determine ways to reduce these emissions through bus passes and other options such as car and van pools. Busard stated he would need the support of department heads to ensure those surveys are completed by as many employees as possible and as completely as possible. Busard said that he developed the survey so that it will be completely web-based and so that he can send it to any County employee who has an email address. Busard said the questionnaire consists of five questions and would take less than one minute to complete. Busard said that after he receives the surveys, he will put the information into a database. Busard said that any employees who do not have email addresses or internet capabilities can be contacted to ensure that they fill out a hard copy of the survey and return it to Busard in a timely manner.
Busard said that the second survey will determine the total amount of greenhouse gases produced by County vehicles. Busard stated he will contact Facilities Director David Kempf to determine the kilowatt-hours and the amount of gas and other energy used to power County buildings. Busard stated that the second survey is for department heads to fill out.
Harney commented that the survey does not ask department heads to indicate which types of fuel they use. Busard stated that he could seek out that information also. Busard explained that all the data is basically assigned a coefficient. R. Sullivan asked if question three on the survey is where they are getting into how much was spent on fuel. Busard confirmed this and stated that the question considers cost as well. Busard said that instead of just reducing the carbon footprint, hopefully the County can save money as well.
Neuzil said that he believes there would be some value in sending Busard to the conference in Albuquerque. He went on to say that he wasn't sure whether it should be funded by Busard’s department or not. Neuzil said that the conference is beyond something Planning and Zoning would have budgeted for, but commented if there are training dollars left in their budget, it would make sense to spend those on this. Stutsman wanted to know how much money the conference would cost. Busard responded between $800-$900. Busard said it costs $525 for the conference, if registered by March 28, 2008. Airfare will be covered by ICLEI, since the County is a member. ICLEI will also offer $75 for a hotel per night. Busard said that it would cost about $825.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak commented that he was in support of Busard attending the conference. He stated that Busard’s attendance would benefit all County departments, but said that he could handle the cost for the conference this year. R. Sullivan commented that Dvorak brought up a good point that this involves more than just the Planning and Zoning Department. Neuzil stated that the Board could look for additional funds. Facilities Director David Kempf commented that it might be a good idea for a Board member to attend the conference as well. Busard stated that ICLEI would also pay for airfare costs for an additional elected official. Dvorak asked that the Board consider additional funding options for Busard’s work with the Cool Counties Initiatives in the future. Stutsman contributed that there is consensus for Busard to attend the conference. R. Sullivan commented that perhaps one of the Board members could attend the conference with Busard. Kempf stated that he would encourage a Board member to attend.
Harney reiterated that Busard had not asked department heads which type of fuel each vehicle in their department uses. Busard stated that he was hoping to break out that information from question four. Busard commented that he still might try to make that clearer. Stutsman asked when Busard wanted to send out the survey. Busard responded he hoped to send it out by the end of February or early March 2008. Stutsman commented that perhaps they should unveil the survey at the next Department Head Meeting on March 18, 2008. Busard stated that the hardest part would be mailing the questionnaires out and getting them back. Stutsman pointed out that sending them out cold turkey would not work. She stated that the Board should make a preliminary announcement about it. R. Sullivan recommended that the Board make a preliminary announcement and have Busard come to the March 18, 2008 Department Head Meeting to ask any questions department heads may have.
Kempf remarked that construction on the Health and Human Services Building is going fairly well considering the weather this winter. He said that there are around 142 auger cast pilings in place for the building. He explained that those pilings are basically concrete. Kempf said that there are a lot of posts in the ground right now. They have also started work on the parking garage structure. Kempf said they will start putting piling caps on top of the augur cast pilings soon.
Kempf reported that the first shipment of steel is scheduled to be delivered on March 10, 2008. Kempf stated that if everything goes as planned, they will be looking at pouring the first floor slabs the second week of April. The second floor will be laid the following week and the third floor the first week of May 2008. Kempf stated the roof deck would be going on the second week of May 2008.
Harney asked if the underground piping for the project would be laid before they start to build the floors. Kempf responded that it would. Harney commented that the construction is moving along. Kempf stated that they have made a good amount of progress, particularly considering the weather. He stated that he is especially impressed with their work with the auger cast pilings. He said that the construction company certainly knows what they’re doing. Meyers asked how deep the auger cast pilings go. Kempf replied that they are 42 feet deep. Kempf stated that these auger pilings are in groupings from two to five. Kempf explained that auger caps are placed on top of these groupings, which make up the support for the foundation for wall beams. Meyers asked if the augur casts are essentially the footings. Kempf replied that they are extra supports that actually support the footings. Kempf explained these are used to support multiple-story buildings. He stated in such large buildings it is necessary to support the footing itself. Kempf said there are different ways of doing this, but commented that when the footings are supporting that much weight the last thing they want them to do is move around, which is why they are placed so far down in the ground. Kempf commented that the footings for the parking structure will be placed 240 feet in the ground in order to support a three level structure.
Stutsman asked if there have been any change orders yet. Kempf replied that they have had a couple change order deducts. He explained that they have had subcontractors relook at some things. By doing so, the subcontractors let them know that they had better ways of doing things, including the design of cable trays, which saved the County about $8,000. Kempf said they also had one change order for the sewer line because the City of Iowa City wanted to increase the size of the sewer line. Kempf remarked that he will be charging Iowa City between $7,000 and $8,000 for the upgrade on the size of the pipe.
Stutsman then asked what the estimated cost for the skywalk was. Kempf replied that it is between $340,000-$360,000. Kempf stated that he has the right-of-way agreement between the Board and the City of Iowa City that allows the County to use the skywalk and airway over Benton Street. He has given the agreement to the County Attorney's Office to be reviewed.
R. Sullivan wanted to know if everything is going as planned with the Health and Human Services Building. Kempf replied that currently everything is going as planned. He mentioned that some believe they are two weeks behind, but stated that they are already discussing ways to make up time.
R. Sullivan asked about other County projects. Kempf replied that construction on the SEATS and Secondary Roads Facility hasn't actually started yet, but said that they have the equipment and the job trailer in place. Kempf said that a transformer has to be set and ordered and a utility pole moved. Kempf said that he will be getting a schedule for the project at the Secondary Roads Meeting on February 19, 2008. Kempf said that all the permits are in place and the building permit has been issued. Kempf stated that they are just waiting on the weather.
Harney commented that he still has an issue with the proposed floor for the SEATS Facility. He said that originally they had planned for a trough system, but now they are converting it to a pit system. Harney stated that he believes the trough system would work better. He said that the County would have to pay for the floor only under the trough system, rather than paying for pits. Harney commented that they will have to clean out the pit. Kempf remarked that both systems would need to be cleaned out, a trough or a pit. Harney commented that staff could clean a trough, whereas someone will have to be hired to clean out a pit. Kempf stated that staff will clean out the pits as well. Kempf stated that it was determined collectively with Secondary Roads, SEATS Director Tom Brase, himself, and the building engineer and architect that a pit system would be a way to save $60,000 on the project. It was agreed that the pit system would work adequately. Kempf said they could look at putting the trough system back in, but said that would raise the cost of the building by $60,000. Harney said that that figure seems incorrect. Kempf remarked that he had to go with the quote, which was $60,000. Harney stated that it seems easier to pour in the floor as compared to building pits as they go. Kempf stated that he was a little taken back by that also. He explained that they went with the numbers based on a consultation from the architect and the engineer. Kempf said the $60,000 was the number they quoted. Kempf stated that he can't tell the architect or the engineer that they misquoted. Harney stated that he understood that. Kempf said the reason they went with that particular drain system was because of the quote. He mentioned they would stick with those figures because they were paid to quote.
Harney commented that he had had several contractors tell him that a trough floor should be cheaper. Kempf said that the people the County had hired to provide numbers quoted the figure. He said that he has to trust these numbers. Meyers said they could have a short conversation with the builders to figure out if there is an easier and cheaper way to build the floor. Kempf agreed to have a conversation with the builders. Meyers stated that it doesn't have to be a long conversation. Kempf said that it would be easy to ask the builders to invest a little more time to refigure the number. Kempf also mentioned that he would be at the Secondary Roads Meeting on February 21, 2008, and could bring the issue up. Kempf said there is no doubt in his mind that a trough system will be more expensive, it is just a matter of figuring out how much more it would cost.
Stutsman asked if there were plans of putting swipe cards on all the courtroom doors in the Courthouse. Kempf confirmed this and noted that they are going to be working on that at the end of February 2008, when the courtrooms aren't in service. Kempf stated that a lot of the wiring is in place, but said that they haven't cut or installed the wiring yet. Kempf said that wiring had been installed and is ready to be turned on in the Clerk of Court area, the first floor courtroom, and the County Attorney's Office. Kempf said that they are ready to do the second and third floor courtrooms. Kempf said they have purchased new security cameras that they will be wiring as soon as they can. He said that these were purchased through grant money received by former Emergency Management Director Tom Hansen. He said that they purchased enough cameras to upgrade the security cameras in the Courthouse. This will allow the deputies to sit at their stations and view every courtroom. Kempf mentioned this will be similar to the system that is in place at the Administration Building.
Harney asked if they have set a target date for when all of this might be operational. Kempf responded that he met with representatives from Freeman Locke and Alarm to determine when they could start work. He said that they have determined that the courtrooms will not be in use from February 25-27, 2008, and plan to start wiring on those days. Kempf mentioned that this project will not be easy because of the courthouse's solid walls. Stutsman asked if the project will be done in all of the courtrooms. Kempf responded the first floor is essentially completed. Kempf said that they have installed the wiring in the Clerk of Court's Office and two of the courtrooms. Kempf said they still have one of the office areas to do and the wiring of the third floor to be installed. Stutsman then asked if those projects will be done by the end of the month. Kempf confirmed this and mentioned they will also be working on the security cameras. Kempf said some of the delay has been in getting the vendor to do the work.
Harney asked if there will be some type of future lockdown capability in the Courthouse. Kempf replied that they would like to be able to lockdown the building with the flip of a switch. Kempf stated that there is some hesitance to allow that capability, but said that they have been working with Sixth Judicial District Court Administrator Carroll Edmondson to adequately accomplish what they hoped to do. Kempf said they were also looking into having the ability to lock and unlock courtrooms independently of one another. This would allow courtrooms to be used in morning, but not the afternoon. Stutsman asked who would be in charge of deciding when to lockdown the Courthouse. Kempf replied that he was not sure who would make that decision. Stutsman stated that she thought that the Board is ultimately responsible for making that decision, according to the Code. Kempf agreed, but commented that lockdowns would only occur in emergency situations. He said it would be unlikely that the Board could be reached fast enough to make that decision in such situations. Stutsman commented that there needs to be a clear line of authority so people know who is in charge. She stated that they need to start planning for that. R. Sullivan commented that he feels the Sheriff’s Deputies should have the authority to lockdown the courthouse if the need arises. Stutsman stated that she agreed, but questioned whether or not they knew they had that authority. Kempf remarked that he thinks it is important to have an understanding with the Sixth Judicial District. Stutsman agreed and stated that communication is important.
Stutsman asked who was in charge of calling the meetings for the Courthouse Security Committee. Kempf said Edmondson usually scheduled those and stated that they meet on a quarterly basis. Harney mentioned that it would be best if the building could be locked down electronically, rather than having someone try to lock it down manually with a key. Kempf agreed. He said that it has been determined that there would not be a good way of using only one button to lockdown the entire Courthouse. Instead, strategically located switches will allow sections of the building to be locked down. Kempf said that those who need to know will know where these switches are located. Kempf mentioned that it will be difficult to make the current courthouse secure. He said that they are just trying to do the best they can. Kempf mentioned that there are several backdoors in the building. He stated that in light of some recent incidents, Courthouse staff is becoming more receptive to the idea of keeping more doors locked. Kempf stated that they are moving in the right direction.
Kempf mentioned that snow removal has become a full-time project. He said that to-date, the County has easily used four times more salt for snow removal than last year. Stutsman expressed her concern that snow maintenance costs will be very expensive compared to other years, especially with Secondary Roads. Harney stated that there has been some roof damage at the Administration Building from the snow. Kempf stated that they have implemented an action plan to avoid these kinds of disruptions as much as possible.
Recessed at 2:29 p.m.; reconvened at 2:34 p.m.
R. Sullivan reported that he and Harney attended the World Policy Board Meeting with the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG). He stated that he tried to get some feedback from representatives from cities that were present at the meeting, as well as from those that were not, in terms of what they want in the way of communication with the Board. R. Sullivan stated that most of the members have other jobs, and that being on the City Council or some other board is an additional responsibility. R. Sullivan commented that because of this, many mentioned that they often don't have the time or inclination to go to extra meetings with the Board. He stated that the representatives from cities are more than happy to have the Board come to each of their meetings, but they do not wish to continue having Joint Meetings with the Board.
R. Sullivan stated that the cities are at different stages with their desire to meet with the Board. R. Sullivan said that North Liberty Mayor Tom Salm is holding monthly work sessions and expressed interest in having the Board talk about their relationship.
Neuzil commented that it will be important for the Board to maintain communication with the smaller cities in Johnson County to discuss issues such as the proposed Justice Center. Stutsman asked what the timeline is for the Justice Center. Neuzil stated that they are still waiting for the report from Durrant. He said that the next Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Meeting is on April 2, 2008. Harney stated that Durrant is way behind.
R. Sullivan commented that some issues are specific to individual cities. Harney stated that the cities were interested in speaking more with their designated liaisons. Neuzil stated that perhaps the Board could find at least three issues to discuss with each of the communities.
R. Sullivan stated that this is the next step in terms of the housing study that the City of Iowa City paid for. R. Sullivan stated that they had asked JCCOG to determine whether or not they would pursue this issue. He reported that JCCOG agreed to take on the issue. Harney commented that he had read a couple editorials that mentioned contractors had available housing that was sitting empty. He said that some contractors didn’t feel this study was correct. R. Sullivan stated that there is not more to update on at this time.
R. Sullivan stated that he had added this to the agenda after talking with JCCOG Assistant Transportation Planner Brad Neumann about recycling in the rural areas of Johnson County. R Sullivan remarked that JCCOG has trailers that they take to the small towns for recycling, but noted that the small towns foot the bill for this service. R. Sullivan commented that the Board could have these trailers sent anywhere in the County as long as the Board was willing to foot the bill. R. Sullivan stated that the Board has not done this in the past. R Sullivan said that those living in the unincorporated areas that want to recycle have to haul it in themselves. Meyers commented that he thought some subdivisions did recycle. Stutsman stated that she thought that those living in some private subdivisions wanted to recycle. R. Sullivan stated that Neumann was not aware of any subdivisions in the County that did recycle.
R. Sullivan asked if the Board would be interested in creating a "recycling challenge" for rural subdivisions to see who can do the most to increase recycling within their subdivision. R. Sullivan commented that the winner could receive recognition at a future Board meeting. He noted that he is not talking about costs to the Board. Stutsman asked if it would apply to all the major subdivisions and unincorporated areas. R. Sullivan replied that he had not thought it through that far. Stutsman stated that some subdivisions are two lots.
Harney wanted to know if the demand for recycling is still there. Harney commented that most people probably recycle themselves. R. Sullivan stated that he didn't know if any of the subdivisions would be interested in getting a quote for the recycling trailers. Meyers mentioned that the Hy-Vee on North Dodge Street has containers for recycling. He commented that they recently increased the types of materials you could recycle there. Stutsman stated that she feels the Board has plenty going on already. She said that she supports recycling efforts, but doesn’t know if the Board should work on it. She recommended sending out brochures to private subdivision associations from JCCOG for information. Harney commented that he feels the biggest issues in recycling are things like appliances and tires. Stutsman responded that the County does offer removal of some recycled goods. Meyers commented that this does not cover appliances and tires.
R. Sullivan began by asking the Board if they would want to put a Chamber of Commerce sticker on the Board’s Office door or the Board Room door. He commented that doing this might open the door to displaying visual support for other groups. He stated that before the Board puts a sticker up, they should discuss if they wanted to discourage all types of stickers. Harney stated he preferred not to put up the sticker. Stutsman agreed with Harney. She stated that all the stickers could get to be too much and that she hadn't seen them put up before.
R. Sullivan stated that there is a Joint Cities Meeting scheduled for February 20, 2008, in Coralville. Meyers commented that the meeting had been cancelled due to weather. Meyers asked if the Lynn-Johnson Meeting was still on for February 21, 2008. R. Sullivan commented that it was. R. Sullivan stated he wanted to get ahead of the game in terms of upcoming meetings. R. Sullivan asked about other future meetings that needed mentioning. Neuzil stated that there may be more meetings cancelled due to the weather. Neuzil asked if Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan could gather each member's issues to be discussed with Iowa legislators and forward them on. Neuzil commented that this would need to be done for the Board's meeting with legislators in Des Moines on February 20, 2008. Meyers questioned whether the Board would still be going to that meeting.
Stutsman stated that she knew the importance of going to Corridor Day, but felt that the Board's issues would not be addressed at all because there would be so much emphasis on corridor issues. Meyers commented that the weather might not allow for the trip. Stutsman commented that she had heard that I-80 to Des Moines was in poor condition from the weather. R. Sullivan asked how the Board wanted to proceed. Stutsman asked who planned on going to the meeting with legislators in Des Moines on February 20, 2008. She stated that she would not be attending. Neuzil stated that he was planning on going. R. Sullivan said that he and Meyers were waiting until after the meeting to talk with the Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek to see what he had to say before deciding whether to go or not. Harney said that he was going to wait to see what the road conditions were. Stutsman said she would make copies of her issues, and Neuzil suggested she forward them to Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan.
Neuzil commented that it was nice to have M. Sullivan back. M. Sullivan said that since returning to his post he had received 4,021 e-mails and that he wasn't yet halfway through them.
League of Women Voters Representative Rebecca Reiter asked if the Joint Cities Meeting was cancelled. R. Sullivan and Stutsman confirmed that it was. M. Sullivan said the same issue had cancelled the previous Joint Cities Meeting. He said that the City of Coralville had planned to host the meeting in the future, but would not likely have set a new date yet. He said that Coralville would republish another date with the Board, at which point they would regroup the agenda items and submit them back to the City of Coralville. M. Sullivan said Coralville hosts the Joint Cities Meeting every other month, so the next one would probably be in April 2008.
R. Sullivan said that this particular issue comes up a lot, and particularly recently with the Johnson County Compensation Board requesting that the Board make a decision on their present status. He said he wanted to have some discussion about the three-quarter-time status that the Board currently utilizes, which is the result of previous Boards trying to secure full-time benefits. He said there are no other positions in the County with such status. Harney said that from his perspective, working on the Board has always been a full-time job and that it didn’t make any difference to him whether it was designated full-time or part-time because the hours put in off the clock rendered it full-time. He noted that Board members did not get vacation and certain other benefits, and for that reason he really saw no reason to change it. Harney said that while he didn't mind if others wanted to change it, he was afraid it would look as though the Board members were looking for a pay raise. For that reason, Harney said he would remain as is. Stutsman said that she felt the same way as Harney, and that she put in the hours as needed to get the job done, even if it meant working 60 hours one week and 30 the next. Harney said that as an elected official, he did not see it as being any different from the Recorder, the Auditor, the Treasurer, or any other elected official. He said that he felt if you were elected to the job, you put in the amount of necessary hours. Meyers said that he wasn't sure if anyone would be doing anything any different from what they currently do, if their status was changed. Stutsman said that if the Board decided to go part-time, she worried that the community would still have full-time expectations. She said that right now, all Board members have a lot of flexibility in their schedules, and that they would be giving up some of that flexibility if they decide to go full-time. Stutsman said that if a member of the community comes to the Board's office at 4:50 p.m. on a Friday afternoon they, expect to see a supervisor. Meyers said that if they went full-time it might mean that he would have to close his business. Stutsman commented that they might be limiting the eligibility pool to those who do not already have full-time jobs. Stutsman said that it did not make any difference to her and that it just came down to semantics. R. Sullivan said that Neuzil had to deal with this when he was still working for the radio station. He said that it would be hard to go to an employer and say, "I want to work for you, but I need to be able to leave any time the Board decides to do anything." Meyers said that there have been times when he said he was going to show up at his business, but didn't because of Board meetings. R. Sullivan said that traditionally the Board has been made up of people either retired from farming or currently working as part-time farmers and that if a week came up where crops needed to be put in or taken out they would just not work on Board matters that week. He said that isn't the situation that the current Board is faced with.
Harney commented that the Johnson County Sheriff is only required to come in three days a week. He said that in his mind, if you take an oath of office, you do the job, regardless of whether you call it full or part-time.
Neuzil said that fundamentally he felt that there was something philosophical about policy-makers being part-time so that they could actually have another job if they so choose. He said that he thought the community knew or assumes that if a person ran for the Board of Supervisors they would have a difficult time holding another job. Neuzil said that his only suggestion was that if a Board member chooses to have another job, then the other Board members would respect that decision. He said that there should be specific times when the Board schedules meetings and times when they shouldn't, though he noted that the Board seemed to be moving towards a regular Monday-Wednesday theme. Neuzil said it would be nice to have that kind of structure, so that Board members could choose to work somewhere else. R. Sullivan said that he hated the idea of saying, 'It's Monday-Friday so we can't do any business.' He said that idea scares him a little bit. Neuzil said that he wasn't necessarily suggesting that, but that it would be nice for Board members to be able to go to other employers with some semblance of structure in their schedule. Stutsman said that she did not know of any Supervisors, other than those who were self-employed, who had a second job. She said that she thought every Board member viewed this as their job, particularly since they are paid and receive benefits. Stutsman said it is not like the Iowa City City Council where the work is essentially voluntary with minimal pay.
R. Sullivan suggested the Board log their time for a couple weeks. He noted that one of the things that the Compensation Board has asked is how much time Board members put in. He said that he thought that none of the Board members really know how much time they are putting in every week. Neuzil said that if they did that they would have to establish what is work and what is voluntary. Meyers said that a similarity he has noticed between owning a business and being a Board member is that hours are put in beyond those spent at the office or the job site. He said being a Board member is the type of job that is still on your mind when driving or laying at home on the couch. He asked if Board members would log in those times too. Neuzil noted that sometimes 30 or 45-minute conversations occur in the grocery store and he asked if that would be considered work. Meyers said that on the last Federal Holiday, he got a call from someone wanting to know why their gravel road hadn't been filled in. R. Sullivan stated that these are the kinds of things the Board needs to discuss.
Neuzil said that he hadn't had any problems with the scheduling of Board meetings since he had quit his previous job. He added that it was simply not possible to hold down another job while on the Board. R. Sullivan said that while right now this isn't an issue for the current Board, it will likely come up down the road again. Neuzil said he suspected that the Compensation Board just wanted to know what fair pay would be if Board of Supervisors members were full-time or part-time. He asked if they should get paid what the other elected officials do. R. Sullivan said that the Compensation Board would not answer any questions about the pay of the Board until the Board answered the question of whether they are full-time or part-time. He said that if they don't want to have the discussion again in January, they need to decide if they are full-time or part-time.
Harney said that he treats his position like a job, but in reality it is an elected official position with responsibilities dictated by the Iowa Code. He said the responsibilities of Board members are very clear, and whatever the Board decides, he will always consider it a full-time position. Neuzil stated that the way the pay is structured, it is a part-time job, at least compared to other elected officials. R. Sullivan said that the Board needs to figure this out because Neuzil and Harney apparently disagree. Neuzil said that he did not know if he and Harney disagreed, but stated that he just thought the Board was expected to put in three-quarters of the time that other elected officials put in. Meyers said that that was his thought as well. R. Sullivan said that it was his understanding that the three-quarter-time was something previous Johnson County Attorney Pat White devised for insurance purposes so that Board of Supervisors members would be covered. He said that the three-quarter-time estimate was not really based on how much work was put in, but was instead implemented so Board members without other jobs could have insurance coverage. Neuzil said that obviously none of them were complaining too much since they kept running for their positions on the Board, and said that Meyers would have to decide that in the next couple years.
League of Women Voters Representative Carol Spaziani said that having a job description would be something the Compensation Board could look at. Neuzil said that the Compensation Board has consistently wanted to give the Board of Supervisors members more money, but most of the time the Board members say 'thanks, but no thanks.' He said that it seemed like there was at least a trend to try to get the Board of Supervisors members up to three-quarters of what the County Treasurer and Recorder have been getting. Neuzil said that it didn't happen this year because the Compensation Board did an "across-the-board thing." Spaziani said that she felt it was a comparative thing rather than an intrinsic thing. R. Sullivan said that it had also been comparative based on other counties in the State, and that the pay of Johnson County Supervisors was ranked fourth or fifth in the State. Harney commented that there is a huge difference in population and the job duties of Johnson County employees.
Neuzil said he was leaning towards the Board members remaining part-time and trying to get to three-quarters of what the other elected officials get. He said he thought that would be a fair way of doing things and added that the Board ought to rethink how they approach the Compensation Board because each year they make everyone mad. Stutsman said she didn't know if that was true. Neuzil reiterated that he thought every elected official should make a recommendation to the Compensation Board and that the Compensation Board should then decide each elected official's salary. He said it may mean that the Compensation Board judges the Board differently because they don't have administrative deputies. Harney said that he agreed with Neuzil to a point because he feels the Compensation Board needs to look at each elected position to analyze current salaries and job responsibilities to make their recommendations accordingly. R. Sullivan said that clearly the Compensation Board wants some direction and clarity regarding employment status. He said that personally he did not have a strong feeling either way, but stated that he did not want to go through this discussion again next year. Stutsman asked if they were going to revisit the issue every year. R. Sullivan said that it will always be at the will of the Board to decide. R. Sullivan said that he thought it would be interesting to keep track of hours a couple times per year. He also said that he would like some more direction from other Board members because he was not sure how to proceed. Neuzil said he wouldn't mind telling the Compensation Board that the Board of Supervisors members are part-time, and that he felt if Board members were doing at least three-quarters of what the other elected officials were doing then they ought to be compensated accordingly. Neuzil said that the Board members are paid just under 70% of what other elected officials are, which is very close to their goal of three-quarters. R. Sullivan stated that the Board members are currently paid 71% of what other elected officials are. Neuzil said that to him the position as a Board member meant working at least 30 hours a week. He said that they typically end up working many more hours, but they get paid for at least 30 of those hours. Neuzil said it would be of some value to let the community know this in case a citizen wanted to run for a spot on the Board, that those would be the expectations should they be elected. He said that Board members really weren't even getting paid that much compared to the other elected officials. Harney said he looked at it a little bit differently. He said they were elected to do a job and the responsibilities it entailed should not be broken down into hours. R. Sullivan said that a supervisor could probably get by working four hours a week, and would not even really have to show up to the meetings, which Stutsman confirmed. R. Sullivan said that clearly the public would take issue with a Board member not attending meetings but that it was not a requirement of the position. Neuzil reiterated that he just felt if a Board member had another job they shouldn't be criticized for it as long as they are meeting the expectations of the position. Harney said he would expect the public to tell them that they have the option to be an elected official, and if they wanted to have a different job, so be it. R. Sullivan said that he felt the Board needed to revisit the issue in the future.
Adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2008
By John Deeth, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on April 9, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.