MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARCH 6, 2008
Ambulance Director Steve Spenler: Ambulance Service Rates
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: Appointmet to Johnson County Zoning Commission
Human Resources Coordinator Dana Winkowitsch: 2007 OSHA Recordable Injuries Update
Reports and Inquiries from the County Attorney
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:35 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Ambulance Director Steve Spenler said that during the budget discussions he had suggested increasing the Ambulance fees. He stated that the current fee schedule is based on Medicare charges. He noted that there was a 10% increase in fees in FY03, followed by a 5% increase in FY04. Spenler said the increases were meant to raise Ambulance fees somewhat above what Medicare reimburses and what other services in the region charge. Spenler said the fees have increased annually by 3% to 3.5% due to an increased cost of living.
Spenler said Basic Life Support (BLS) takes up about 43% of their calls, Emergency Support accounts for 53% of the total calls, and Advance Life Support (ALS) II for 2%. Spenler explained that ALS II is a more intense and invasive treatment where medication is administered. Spenler said that the average charge for similar services in the State of Iowa is $551.42. He noted that the statewide average fee is 33% higher than Johsnon County's fee. Going into more detailed comparison with other services in the State, Spenler said that the average ALS charge of $655.28 is 20% higher than that of the County, and the fee for mileage is about 21% higher.
Neuzil asked if increasing County rates would affect collection rates. Spenler said that the projected tax support for FY08 will come in better than projected. Stutsman said that it would be interesting to see how the tax support has come down in the past 10-15. She added that the Ambulance Department has been more aggressive in fees set-up in an effort to reduce taxpayer subsidy. Spenler said the percentage of tax support has decreased or stayed relatively constant throughout the last 10 years.
Spenler said that Ambulance fees are based on actual costs and not on how much other services are charging. He noted that they should base their fees on a balance between what they would like to charge and what it would take to be relatively tax free. Spenler said the average charge is $509.88, which is 3.5% higher than in FY07. The average cost per transport is $470.00, down from FY07 due to the increase in call volume. Spenler noted that the collection rate for FY07 was about 65%. Spenler said that the industry-wide standard for collection rates is 55%-60%. He explained that Medicare and Medicaid are not increasing their reimbursements if the County chooses to increase its fees.
Spenler expects that as fees increase, the 65% collection rate will go down to 60% or less. He noted that the $470.65 cost per transport divided by the 65% collection rate amounts to $724.00. Spenler said that $724 would be the approximate average charge needed to eliminate tax support. He noted that would be a 42% increase in fees. Based on a 65% collection rate the Board would need to increase fees by 50% in order to totally eliminate the tax support. Spenler said that a 10% increase in fees would amount to approximately $154,000 in additional revenue. If the collection rate was 60% the increase would amount to $142,000.
Spenler recommended raising the fees for BLS by 20%, increasing the ALS fees by 10%, and increasing the fees for mileage by 20%. Spenler said that would mean an overall increase of 14%. He noted that with a 60% collection rate the revenues would increase by $198,000 and with a collection rate of 55% the revenues would increase by $181,000. Harney asked how the Ambulance Department would handle the billing to Medicare and Medicaid. Spenler said the Ambulance Department must accept the amount received. He noted that for BAS the Ambulance charges $374 and receive $290 from Medicare. The charge for ALS is $525 and the reimbursement is $349. Spenler added that for ALS II the reimbursement is $485.
R. Sullivan said that Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement may be an issue they need to revisit with the Senators and Congressmen in Washington, D.C. because it is an obvious problem. Spenler said the State of Iowa is reimbursed at a very low rate. He added that the State received a 2.5% increase this year. Spenler said that the Ambulance Industry is lobbying for a 5% increase. He noted that Medicaid reimbursement is far less than Medicare.
Spenler stated that he would like to see the new fee structure start at the beginning of the fiscal year. R. Sullivan said that some County services are funded by all taxpayers and others are paid for by the users. R. Sullivan said that the County is charging a little low on the user-end for Ambulance services. Spenler said that 51% of the Ambulance Department's revenues come from commercial insurance, which for the most part fully reimburses the amount billed. He noted that to some degree the Ambulance Department is subsidizing commercial insurance by not charging the maximum fee that they can. Spenler said that services with far higher fee structures are fully reimbursed by commercial insurances.
Harney asked how the rates compare to those charged by independent providers. Spenler replied that the rates are fairly close. Spenler said that 90% of the Ambulance Department's expenses are for personnel. He explained that a lot of the expense is the cost of readiness and having full-time employees instead of just having people on-call. Neuzil said that every department should be looking at enhancing revenues. Stutsman asked what the recommended increase is for ALS II fees. Spenler said that they would annually adjust the fees based on the increase in cost of living expenses.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said the proposed annexation is west of the City of Swisher, within Swisher's growth area, going south of Highway 20 to Greencastle Road. The project will have city sewer and private wells and will not be in a TIF district. Dvorak noted that Swisher is doing an extensive upgrade of their Waste Water System. He added that the only issue is the proposed access to Greencastle Road.
County Engineer Greg Parker met with Swisher Mayor Scott Grabe and discussed the proposed annexation. Parker said that the proposed area is on the west side of town just west of the Post Office. He noted that one property owner on the corner is not part of the annexation. Parker recommended that the property owner be annexed because there would be intersection details to solve as part of the development. Parker said Swisher is proposing two access roads on the north side of the development and has asked that the speed limit from Greencastle Road east be dropped to 25 mph. Parker said that the speed limit on the other side of the road would need to be matched. He said that the 85 percentile guidelines are not applicable to Greencastle Road and therefore minimizing the speed limit would be an enforcement issue. He clarified that if Swisher requests dropping the speed limit they would need to pick up the enforcement on both sides of the road.
Parker said the proposed project would be developed in six phases. He said that Swisher would be asked to pave Greencastle Road. He clarified that the road would need to be designed and constructed for future paving. Stutsman asked if only the section along the development would be reconstructed. Parker said that is correct. R. Sullivan asked if the road would be paved or just reconstructed. Parker said that was to be determined. Parker said that in the past, they have requested that developers pave the roads. R. Sullivan asked if Swisher was prepared to annex the property to the middle of the road. Parker said that was a requirement of the Iowa Code.
Stutsman was not interested in putting any County money into a road that is adjacent to the City of Swisher. She added that if Swisher annexes the property they will need to pay for the road. R. Sullivan said that Greencastle Road has been identified as one of the County's number one priorities. Parker said that if Swisher decides to annex the property the County will have Swisher cost-share their side of the road. Dvorak said that it was proposed to him that when the County does their side of Greencastle Road, the developer should pay for seal coating and the engineering of the remainder of the road up to 120th Street. Stutsman was unclear about who would pay for what portion of the road. Dvorak said that from the property line north the developer would cover the cost. He added that when the County does their improvements to Greencastle Road, the developer will pay for both sides of the road. Parker said the cost-sharing meant that the developer would pick up the north portion and the County would pick up the south portion of the road.
Harney said they also needed to discuss 120th Street. He noted that Swisher will annex to the center of the road and the road needs to be upgraded. He stated that the area is already problematic with the amount of traffic that it has. Parker said that if 120th Street is reconstructed, the north half will be the County's responsibility and the south half will be paid for by Swisher. Parker noted that rebuilding 120th Street is not included in the current 5 Year Road Plan. Parker said that an engineer would need to compile a traffic study to determine if there is a need for any accommodations for exiting and entering the subdivision.
R. Sullivan said MMS Consultants and Swisher have thought this through. He stated that he was glad to see that the proposed development included streets with future potential of connection instead of cul-de-sacs. Meyers was in favor of the sewer hookups. Harney said the Composting Facility on 120th Street might be approved and that would increase the traffic. Harney is in favor of reducing the speed limit to 25 mph along the road.
Meyers asked if there had been a previous annexation near the Post Office. Dvorak responded that there was a 40-acre annexation towards the north, but the owners have not developed the property because of sewer issues. He noted that an area east of town on Marak Avenue has been annexed, but also not developed due to sewer issues. Dvorak said that Swisher has been very aggressive in getting their Wastewater Treatment Facility brought up-to-date. Meyers said that any development on the north side would create more traffic on 120th Street. Parker said that increased traffic would also affect the gravel road that runs north from that. R. Sullivan said that there is the potential of sixty homes being built on fairly small lots and asked if there would be a need for a turn lane off of 120th Street. Parker said that the consultant that would do the engineering design on the project would do a traffic study to determine future needs. Dvorak said that Swisher requested that JCCOG do a transportation study to determine the impact of the proposed access lines on 120th Street and Greencastle.
Swisher City Attorney Steve Greenleaf said that before going to the Swisher Development Board they are required to have a waiver from the Board of Supervisors. He said that the Board will need to pass a resolution stating that the Board has been notified of the proposed annexation, had appropriate opportunity to consult with Swisher, and wanted to waive the formal meeting. He said he would speak with Grabe about the potential for the 80/20 annexation. Greenleaf said that Swisher is looking at a proposed subdivision in tandem with the proposed annexation. Although they cannot subdivide before the property is annexed, one will closely follow the other. Greenleaf said that as part of the subdivision they will need to draft Sub-Divider Agreements so that the developer, Swisher, and the County are all parties to what is anticipated. He noted that the agreements will include the formal rules and requirements for the subdivision and other issues, such as roads.
Harney asked why the annexations are done to the center of the road and do not include the entire road. Greenleaf said that it goes back to how roads where originally built in Johnson County. He noted that a lot of older roads are held by easement. Greenleaf said that the adjoining property owner still owns the road and Swisher or the County has an easement. He clarified that the County owns the road in fee simple, but the property lines of the two adjacent landowners run out to the middle of the road.
MSS Consultant Mark Stein asked if the Board was planning to re-grade Greencastle Road. Parker said that last year the Board had requested that as part of the additional Rural Tax Levy they work on some capital improvement projects. Parker added that Greencastle from 120th Street south to the first intersection was one of the selected projects. In light of this annexation, Parker said that the road should be designed based on an engineering design standard and they would need to hire a contractor to re-grade the road. Because of the future potential use of that road, he did not want to spend maintenance dollars to upgrade the road and two years later rip it up and re-grade it. Parker said that the re-grading of Greencastle Road is part of the Capital Improvement Plan, but is not a part of the 5 Year Road Plan.
Stein asked if the developer would be responsible for the grading costs. Parker said that in the past the County has requested that the developer pick up the cost for grading. R. Sullivan said that the Board has discussed chip sealing this road with a good base so that it could easily be paved in the future. Parker said that they were planning on re-grading the road and seal coating it the following year. Parker said that re-building the road at a design standard requires that specific guidelines be fulfilled. Parker noted that these additional guidelines were not part of the plan when the Board decided to re-grade the road. Parker recommended re-grading the road as an engineering project and adding it to the 5 Year Road Plan. He said that doing it as an engineering project would increase the cost, but it would meet a future need and would be a cost-effective solution at this time. Meyers said that if they add this road to the 5 Year Road Plan, another project will need to be taken out. Parker said that the Board has put aside $500,000 annually and adding this road will not impact the existing 5 Year Road Plan.
Neuzil said that the Board must consider the impact of the proposed development and the affect it will have on County resources. Neuzil noted that the developer would need to invest in some of the infrastructure. Stutsman said the Board has not planned to redesign the road because it can handle the current amount of traffic. Parker said that the road already receives a lot of traffic. Parker said that there are two options for paying for the road. He noted that one option would be to have the developer pave the road up front. The second option would be to have the developer seal coat the road up front and pave it when the development connects to the road. Stutsman said that they should not wait on paving the road until phase six because the last phase will only create approximately six additional lots. She noted that the first five phases of the development will generate most of the traffic. Parker said they would not allow access to Greencastle Road until it is paved. He noted that the access would be part of the last phase in the development.
Developer and Landowner Mike Marek said that the Swisher Planning and Zoning Commission and Grabe were in agreement with seal coating the lots that would touch Greencastle Road, an area of 643 feet. Marek said that the house on the corner was not previously included in the annexation discussions. Marek had talked with Planning and Zoning and decided that the developer would work on the 643 feet of road during Phase 6 since there was no advantage to seal coat the road when they were not going to be using it. R. Sullivan said that Amy Street would not go through until Phase 6 is finished. Marek said that all the traffic would be off 120th Street and Amy Street. Marek said that if the proposed sewer line doesn't reach his property the development may never occur.
Marek said that the property owner on the corner is not required to annex into Swisher since his land is touching other parts of the County. Dvorak said that not annexing the corner lot would create maintenance issues. R. Sullivan said that if the developer would only chip seal 643 feet, there would be 250 feet left to the north. Marek asked if the County would pick up the cost for chip sealing the remaining 250 feet if the developer paid for the cost of chip sealing the other 643 feet. Stutsman said that since the road will be part of Swisher the County would no longer receive tax dollars to upgrade it. Stutsman said that it would not be fair for the County to upgrade a road for which it is not receiving much revenue. R. Sullivan said that by upgrading the road that goes south, more people would choose to go that direction. Dvorak said paving the road up front would be cheaper than doing it in a few years.
Stutsman said Marek should not feel singled out because this is how the Board has always considered road issues adjacent to a city. Stutsman said that the County and Swisher are trying to protect their resources. R. Sullivan asked if Swisher would want to annex the corner parcel. Greenleaf said that based on prior experience the decision is based on the attitude of the landowner. He would prefer not to annex the property involuntarily. He noted that they could always do a 28E Agreement for maintenance.
Marek asked why it would be cheaper to upgrade the road up front. Dvorak said that when a developer participates in the County's improvement of a road, the cost is less than if the developer were to hire a contractor to do it. He said that Marek would have to pay for the engineering and the base and surface construction. Dvorak noted that if the workers were already on site, they would charge less than if they were to have to make a separate trip. Dvorak said that it saves the developer a significant amount of time and money by working jointly with the County. Parker said that the County planned to keep Greencastle Road a gravel road with a seal coat surface for increased dust control. Parker said that with a new development accessing the road there would be a huge amount of dust blowing.
Marek asked what the required pavement width is. Parker said the pavement width is determined by design criteria. He added that they will consider things like whether a separate sidewalk on the section of roadway is needed, if they need a curb, gutter, or storm sewer, and the amount of traffic that will be generated. Marek said that the Swisher Planning and Zoning Commission would be OK having the road seal coated. Parker said that after the annexation, Swisher will have jurisdiction of half of the road and the County will have jurisdiction of the other half. Parker said that the County and Swisher will need a joint agreement on how to proceed. Marek stated that he would not have access to the road and sewer to the north end of the property until Phase 6. He asked if they provide a 24 foot width all the way to the end of the road for the chip and seal coat. Parker replied that the minimum top width would be 30 feet. Dvorak said that the minimum requirement for Swisher is 31 feet.
Dvorak suggested deferring action on this annexation until they find out how the Swisher City Council would like to proceed. Stutsman said that Swisher could pick up the cost for the 80/20 parcel. R. Sullivan pointed out that it is important that the Board and Swisher come to an agreement. Assistant Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore asked if the Board expected the road to be paved from the south property line to 120th Street in the north. Moore stated that paving is much more expensive than a chip seal. R. Sullivan thought that they were talking about a road built to specification that could be paved in the future. He noted that paving the road would be up to Swisher. Parker said that looking at past practices when a development accesses a County road, a paved standard is required or expected. Stutsman asked if the road would be designed to a paved standard. Parker said that they would require concrete and/or asphalt. R. Sullivan stated that this road was unique because of the location. Parker said that the anticipation is that Swisher or the developer will pick up the road cost as the proposal was brought up as a city development. Parker said that Grabe had stated that the developer would pick up the cost. Parker said that the County will not pay for the paving because they are not doing the development. Stutsman added that the Board didn't plan to put in that kind of investment.
Parker explained that the re-graded road would jump to a different level of service. Parker said that with seal coat roads the County has the opportunity to embargo roads and deal with the spring thaw issues. He pointed out that the Board and Secondary Roads will get several calls from complaining citizens if the road is just seal coated. Parker said that they are trying to provide residents with a good level of service. Parker said that the lots in the proposed development will cost $40,000 per lot or more. Parker said that Grabe has different comments than the Planning and Zoning Commission. Stutsman asked if the Board has given a pretty consistent message about the expectations. Parker recommended that the road be paved when the development accesses the road. Dvorak stated that prior to that they could work with the developer and Swisher on the surface and grading issues. Marek asked if the road would need to be paved as an asphalt road. Parker stated that the Board would need to set up an ESCROW Account to make sure that the road costs will be covered. Parker said that it is always a good idea to make developers cover the costs up front so that it does not become a greater issue to deal with down the road.
R. Sullivan said that more work should be done between the County and the City of Swisher. Dvorak said that the Swisher City Council would review the proposal. Harney asked how far south they would implement dust control. Parker responded that as requested by the Board, dust control will be applied south to the Intersection of Blank Center. Stutsman said that it was mainly a high-level Dust Alleviation Program. Parker said they would put in a macadam base with a choke surface and then seal coat the road.
Greenleaf stated that they would do a Subdivision Agreement that would spell out obligations for adjoining roads. He stated that the County needs to be a third party involved in the negotiations. Greenleaf would like to get the waiver of the consultation meeting so they can keep the annexation process moving forward. He said that if there were any problems there will still be a hearing before the Development Board on the annexation. He said that having the waiver will keep Swisher on a timeline to get the annexation approved while working out the details for the development. The Board will vote on the waiver at the formal meeting on March 11, 2008.
Dvorak said that he was hoping to reclassify the Secretary I position to a Secretary II, but that did not work out. Dvorak said that if the Board supports the reclassification to a Clerk II, he will need to go before the union. Stutsman said that procedurally the Board considers personnel requests during budget time. She added that even if the Board approves the reclassification the change will not occur until it is discussed during the budget meetings. Neuzil said that this is an open opportunity. Neuzil asked if Planning and Zoning could wait for a year and use temporary help in the meantime. Neuzil asked if the positions are fairly close in regards to salary and benefits. Dvorak said that if they moved it up to a Secretary II, there will be a considerable amount of salary difference. R. Sullivan said that the $900 pay difference is something that Planning and Zoning will fund from their budget. Stutsman said that the Board's consideration of the reclassification would not be fair to other departments. She noted that the Board has put off a reclassification for the Department of Public partly because it is an item that needed to be considered during budget time. Dvorak said Planning and Zoning can wait to hire someone, but stated that they need to move forward with the approval of reclassification. Dvorak said that if the request is not approved he will make the request at another time.
R. Sullivan said that Planning and Zoning has had a second turnover recently. R. Sullivan asked if reclassifying the position would increase the number of applicants. Human Resources Coordinator Vanessa Wierman stated that in reviewing the position, they have considered some of the changes that have occurred within the job duties as well as the responsibilities that this person has had to take on during the past six or seven years. She noted that based on what this person is actually doing in the position, it does seem as though the position would be better classified as a Clerk II. Wierman pointed out that due to the merger of Planning and Zoning and the Building Division, this person has become responsible for more. Wierman said that they need to consider what the person is actually doing versus what they thought the person in that position was doing.
Wierman said that after reviewing the position, it has become clear that this job has customer service responsibilities that include answering questions at the counter and that these responsibilities have propelled the position to a Clerk II position. Wierman said the Secretary I position and the proposed position are on the non-bargaining scale. Stutsman said that they need to get that clarified. She said that she wanted to be fair and consistent with the system the Board put in place. Harney said the Board could still reclassify the position because they are still in the budget session. Harney said that Planning and Zoning was not asking for additional funds for the position. Stutsman stated that they couldn't add more to the budget. Stutsman continued that no increases could be made to the budget because it was published.
Dvorak said that because of the inclusion of the Building Inspectors within the Planning and Zoning Department, they have seen an increase in responsibilities for this position. He noted that they had been working on reclassifying this position in the past. He said that when their most recent Secretary I left, they felt it was time to try to match the classification of the position with the actual job responsibilities. Dvorak said that the previous Secretary I handled more money and new computer programs for building permits and inspections. Dvorak believes it is an appropriate time to reclassify the position. Stutsman replied that she doesn't have any issues with the reclassification. She said at this point, it is an issue of process. Stutsman continued that if they could get things clarified, she would feel better about going ahead. R. Sullivan asked if the Board was in favor of moving forward with the understanding that if the questions were answered adequately they would proceed next week and if not they could defer action.
County Attorney Janet Lyness mentioned that the Board has tried to change classifications when positions are vacant. Otherwise, Lyness explained that an employee performing Clerk II duties could request to be reclassified and the County might have to pay back-wages. She stated that reclassifying the position before they hire would probably be better. Lyness said that the reclassification will have to go to the union for input. She added that the chairman does not have to meet with the union. The union will receive a copy of the reclassification and will have a chance to respond. R. Sullivan said they would place this on the formal agenda and move forward if all questions are answered by next week.
Dvorak said that there are two vacancies for the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said that the closing date for applications was February 29, 2008. He noted that they have received only one application from Robert Conrad. Dvorak stated that Conrad serves on the Iowa City Housing Taskforce and seemed very eager to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Conrad was the only applicant and Dvorak believed he would be very good. Dvorak stated that there might be other applicants that would be just as good, but no additional applications have been received. Dvorak said he would like to have everything ready by April 1, 2008.
Dvorak said they will have a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on March 10, 2008. Dvorak said he would like Conrad to be involved from day one. Dvorak pointed out that Conrad would be going to the meetings anyway. Sullivan stated that the process would not be finished by March 10, 2008. Dvorak stated that Conrad would attend the meetings, but would not participate in discussions. Neuzil said that if Conrad was going to attend the meetings he should have some indication from the Board. Neuzil said Conrad was the only applicant and he had the qualifications needed to serve on the Zoning Commission. R. Sullivan said that the vacancy was advertised through the usual process.
Moore said that on Monday 10, 2008 at 2 P.M., the Board will have a work session with the Land Use Plan Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the proposed Land Use Plan. Dvorak noted that they would re-advertise for the Board of Adjustment opening.
Moore mentioned that students from the University of Iowa Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Planning have been working with the citizens of Frytown to come up with some policies for village development. He stated that the students have conducted two meetings with the citizens and they will have a third one in the future. He mentioned that they expect to have that policy presented to the Zoning Commission on April 14th, 2008 and to the Board by late April 2008. Moore said that he would post more information on the website as he receives it. Meyers asked when the third meeting would be. Moore said he would contact the students for more details.
Winkowitsch said that in 2007 there were 11 more injuries than in 2006 when there were 25 recordable injuries. Winkowitsch said that the Sheriff's Department had an increase of 7 injuries. Winkowitsch stated that the increases were due to bodily fluid exposure. Winkowitsch stated that the SEATS Department had two injuries in 2007, up one from 2006. The Conservation Department had five injuries, which is the same as in 2006. Winkowitsch said there were two injuries at the Attorney's Office, the same as last year. The Ambulance Department had three injuries in 2007 and only one in 2006. The Administration Building had two injuries, one in the Treasurer's Office and one in Planning and Zoning, which is a decrease of two injuries from 2006. Secondary Roads had five injuries in 2007 and six in 2006.
Winkowitsch said that Emergency Management, MH/DD, Public Health, and the Public Health HIV Clinic did not have injuries in 2006, but each had one injury in 2007. Winkowitsch pointed out that in 2006 there were 861 restricted workdays and in 2007 that number decreased to 468 days. Winkowitsch said that they had an increase in recordable injuries, but noted that the injuries were not as severe as in 2006 and required less light duty days. Winkowitsch said that in 2006 there were 61 days taken off due to injury and in 2007 there were 69.
Winkowitsch said that 44% of the injuries were due to sprain, strain, or twist, 17% were from bruises, contusions, and other blunt injuries, and 11% were from bodily fluid exposure. She added that 11% were injuries caused by cuts, lacerations, scrapes, or punctures, 8% were from bee stings, tick bites, animal bites, 6% were from rashes, burn, or poison ivy exposure and 3% were from fractures.
Stutsman asked if there would be an increase in workmen compensation rates. Winkowitsch said that the frequency and severity of claims in the past three years are used to determine the mod factor. Winkowitsch said the current mod of .79 is very good. She explained that anything below one is good. Neuzil wanted to know more about the County process and the Safety Committee. Winkowitsch replied that as part of the Safety Committee they have the Incident Review Committee. The Incident Review Committee meets every other month to discuss County injuries and incidents. Winkowitsch added that the Incident Review Committee has members from different Departments that review injuries. Winkowitsch said that the Committee is trying to make recommendations to Department Heads and the Board in an effort to reduce the number of injuries. Winkowitsch stated that anything that can be done in the way of training and awareness is very important for being pro-active.
Lyness said that they had two teams for Ball for Kid's Sake that represented the County Attorney's Office. She noted that Neuzil and Dvorak participated on behalf of the County Attorney's team. Lyness said they raised over $1000 for Big Brothers Big Sisters. She thanked Neuzil and Dvorak for their participation.
GIS Coordinator Rick Havel said that on September 27, 2007, the Board approved a contract with Fugro Horizons of Rapids City, South Dakota, to collect 2008 orthophotography for Johnson County. Havel stated that the contract was part of a multi-county project that included Linn County and Iowa County. Havel said that Linn County had a multi-year contract with Horizons to do orthophotography. Havel said that Linn County could use a standard pricing schedule. Havel said that earlier in 2007 they started the planning process for getting 2008 orthophotography and wanted to partner with adjacent counties and get some pricing leveraging by using volume discount.
Havel said that someone from Linn County approached him saying that they had an existing contract in place with a good price and were very satisfied with the product they received in 2005. Havel said orthophotography is high resolution, highly accurate color countywide aerial photography. Havel said County departments, Iowa City, the University of Iowa, and the public use this data set extensively. Havel said that the maps can be accessed by clicking on the online mapping tab on the homepage of the County website found at www.johnson-county.com. Havel said that the cost for 2008 will be $87,788 and will include the collection of the photography, processing, the delivery and development into a compressed format.
Havel said they used Dan Corbin, Inc in 2003 and 2006 to review the orthophotography data and check it to validate that it met accuracy specification. Havel said that for 2008 Dan Corbin, Inc would charge $18,883. Havel said this price would include project coordination, targeting, and intense horizontal accuracy testing. Havel concluded that the total cost of the project would be $106,671.80. Havel said that in 2006 the total cost for orthophotography was $117,718 and noted that this is a price reduction from the previous year. Havel said that the County Attorney's Office has reviewed these contracts. Havel said that they have money budgeted for this project in schedule with the two year cycle to update the data set. Havel said they would fly in April if there is no snow. He said that the data would be delivered by the end of 2008. Havel said that they would imply penalty clauses to make sure the delivery time frame is met. He noted that all work would be done in the United States. Havel recommended approving the contract and moving forward with Horizons and the contract with Dan Corbin, Inc. Havel was complimented on the completeness of his report. The Board would move the proposal to the formal agenda for March 13, 2008.
Harney attended the ECICOG Board of Directors meeting on February 29, 2008. He also worked on Housing Reports, the Community Development Block Grant, and other Federal projects. He attended a RAGBRAI meeting on March 1, 2008, a Coralville Chamber Round Table meeting on March 3, 2008, and a meeting with the City Assessors Conference Board and the County Assessors Conference Board. On March 3, 2008 Harney and Meyers attended the Farm Bureau Annual Event. Harney also had a meeting with the County Sheriff, the County Attorney, attended the Iowa City Round Table meeting, and met with National Guard Colonel Vince Reefer. Harney also worked on road issues and participated in the Bowl for Kids Sake.
Stutsman has been in Washington, D.C. with the Council for Agriculture Research, Extension, and Teaching.
Neuzil was in Washington, D.C. and served on the Environment Energy And Land Use Committee and the Water Quality Subcommittee for the National Association of Counties (NACo). He met with Congressmen Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack, and Leonard Boswell and with Senator Tom Harkin.
Meyers attended two MECCA events, met with the Boards of the County Assessor and the Iowa City Assessor, attended a Farm Bureau Meeting, attended a Trails Committee Meeting, had a session with Evaluations, and did a site visit for DECAT.
Sullivan attended a Chatham Oaks Board Meeting, had a meeting with the Livable Communities for Successful Aging Committee, and met with Oxford Mayor Don Saxton.
Harney met with Parker to prepare a request to the State for additional Emergency Road Maintenance Funds.
______________________________________________________________________
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2008
By Bogdana Rus, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on May 22, 2008 at 9:14 a.m.