MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
APRIL 24, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
County Auditor Tom Slockett County Optical Scan Voting System Funding Allocation Agreement between Johnson County, Iowa, Election Systems & Software, Inc. and the Iowa Secretary of State......... 1
MH/DD Director Kris Artley: Recommendations from the MH/DD Planning Council.......... 3
Durrant Group Representative Mike Lewis: Justice Center Site Suitability Study.................. 3
Deputy Auditor Dana Aschenbrenner: Eide Bailly Audit Report Summary for the Year Ended June 30, 2007..................................................................................................................................... 16
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan........................................... 17
Board of Supervisors: Proposals to Provide Cost Allocation Services for Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 2010..................................................................................................................................... 17
Board of Supervisors: Request for Proposals for Financial Advisory Services for Conservation Bond Issue. 19
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors......................................................... 22
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:20 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
R. Sullivan said the discussion regarding the Johnson County Optical Scan-Voting System Funding Allocation Agreement is between Johnson County, Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S), and the Iowa Secretary of State. Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett said the State Legislature passed a mandate this year requiring all Iowa counties to switch to paper ballots and paper ballot-marking devices so that elections will be uniform across the State. He said it will accommodate recounts and automatic audits, which are on the table for discussion for the following year. Slockett said Johnson County's current system is made up of electronic voting machines that have real-time audit logs that record how the voter marked their ballot on the electronic part of the machine. He said there is also a paper roll on the side that shows every mark that the voter made. Slockett said for example, if a voter votes for a bond issue the machine notes it and if the voter changes their mind and votes no, the machine registers 'no'. He said if the voter changes their mind back, the machine registers 'yes'. Slockett said to perform routine audits, the votes for each voter have to be compiled during recounts of the paper trail. He said that the new system's devices will mark the same ballot that everyone uses, so that persons with a sight disability or poor vision will mark the same ballot that everyone else is using. Slockett said that recounts and automatic audits it will be an easier and more consistent process with the new voting machines.
Slockett said the State decided to fund the cost of the units under the Automark System and there will be one system for each precinct plus one for absentee voting. He said there are 58 ballot-marking devices at $4,950 each for a total of $287,100 that the State will pay for. He said there is a contract to be signed by the Chair of the Board and by the County Auditor and there is a motion authorizing that to happen. He said this will pay for 58 machines with no backups. He said it is important that Johnson County has five additional machines for backup in case problems occur and equipment needs to be switched out. Slockett said the new units will be used at satellite voting stations and the County often has a number of satellite stations open at the same time. He said the County will need to buy five machines from its own funds as specified in the contract. Slockett said the contract specifies that the equipment will cost $24,750 and said that the County is also responsible for purchasing the Ames software that programs the units which will cost $2,500. He said that Election Support Services will need to check out the new units after they have shipped to make sure they are functioning properly and that will cost $6,615. Slockett said the shipping and handling of the new units will amount to $2,835, which brings the total amount to $36,700.
Slockett said they worked with the Johnson County Attorney's Office to go over the contract and they have changed one detail. He said they have listed services commencing on 2010 which is after the expiration of the one-year maintenance support warranty and costs $17,640. Slockett said the County does not need that because they have trained technicians to do the work. He said the warranty services will be removed from the contract. He said part of the contract reads, "Customers shall not permit any individual other than an ES&S representative…" Slockett said to that they added, "…or persons trained and certified under the County Certified Technician Program to provide maintenance and repairs to the equipment." He said this was the same language that was inserted into the original contract for the previous equipment purchased by the County. Slockett said ES&S has agreed to the changes in the contract and stated there are two motions. He said one authorizes the signing of both contracts and the other requires the signature of the Chair of the Board and the Johnson County Auditor. Slockett requested that both motions be passed.
Stutsman asked if the County is getting any optical scanners. Slockett said no because the County already has optical scanners. Harney asked Slockett how he determined the County needed five backup machines instead of three and if some of the other machines could be used for satellite. Slockett said the company recommended having 5-10% of the machines designated as backups. He said the County previously had ten units used as backups. He said the County has 57 precincts, 67 M100 scanners, and 57 iVotronic units so there is one for each precinct with ten backups. Slockett said the Automarks are less complicated equipment because they just mark ballots instead of tallying them. He said they are not used nearly as much as the Direct-Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines because if people have a ballot in their hand and they are able to mark it, they will just mark it and not use the electronic device. Slockett said he had gotten that information from Polk County, which has 283 precincts and only received one vote on an Automark machine in the last election. He said in the election before that one, Polk County only received three votes on Automark machines from 283 precincts. He said that his office determined five machines would be sufficient backup. Slockett said the highest amount of satellite voting occurs right before the election and by that time the equipment will have already been shipped to the precincts. Stutsman asked if the contract covered the total cost of the equipment. Slockett said it covers the entire cost of the 58 units and the County is responsible for the cost of the additional five backup machines.
Recessed to the formal meeting at 9:31 a.m., reconvened at 9:33 a.m.
Johnson County Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities (MH/DD) Director Kris Artley said the MH/DD Planning Council had met the previous day and were formally recommending two applicants to the Board to fill open positions on the MH/DD Planning Council. She said the first one is Bill Regan who is the Executive Director of the Arc of Johnson County, a provider of human services for over 20 years. Artley said the other applicant is Lisa Ann Johnson, a Special Education Teacher in the Iowa City School District with an interest in the transition planning of high school kids graduating and entering the adult system. She requested that the Board review the applications and put them on an agenda in the following weeks for approval. R. Sullivan said they would place it on a future formal agenda.
Durrant Group Representative Mike Lewis apologized to the Board and the community for the scheduling changes. He said that he had intended to have the discussion back in January so that the report could be completed in February. He said the group had had a couple of internal projects that demanded his undivided attention and thus he was unable to work on the Justice Center Site Suitability Study in the intended January timeframe. Lewis said he resumed his efforts on the study in March, and that the site assessment is a byproduct of that work. He said they wanted to see additional involvement and participation including a request from the Board to have a one-on-one discussion with the Durrant Group. Lewis said the information being discussed is in regards to sites that are Durrant's vision of sites and also sites relative to the Justice Center Complex. He said his desire was that there would be a larger community group and larger input in the site selection process. Lewis said it is important for the Board to understand the group's professional opinion and that site selections are not solely made on professional recommendations. He said the reasons are not always technical and that the Durrant Group has tried their best to file potential sites into a scoring system of criteria including neighborhood impact and community involvement. Lewis said that a lower score meant that the neighborhood and community is negatively impacted by the presence of this project and that a higher score indicates a positive impact. He said the vicinity is an important factor along public accessibility, professional accessibility, and service accessibility to the site. Jails in particular need to be able to be served properly by the people that come to them. He said the public and professional side of this in terms of the courts with the attorneys and professional visitors is a critical component so that access from many different levels is functioning.
R. Sullivan asked M. Sullivan if there was a possibility they could make copies for members of the public. M. Sullivan said yes. Lewis said with regard to location and accessibility a lower score means one or more core elements are missing and a higher score means core elements are present. He said flexibility is an important factor for any site because a site needs to be able to grow and not be locked in as certain needs change over time. Lewis said site restrictions such as zoning or developmental could restrict the growth of a site. He said his group was looking at whether the site could expand horizontally or vertically and what the restrictions were and how that would impact the cost of the project. He said when his group was looking at the planning stages back in December the configuration would include 10 or 12 courtrooms and 82,000 square feet of space. Lewis said the jail side would include about 200-250 beds and 85,000 square feet of space, with the ability 25 years down the road to grow and expand to about 400 beds. Lewis said the buildings are fully equipped with sprinklers, but there is a life safety issue because the occupants are restrained in the jail and don't have the ability to leave freely on their own. Fire department access and the ability to get support services is a critical part should the building ever need to be evacuated, so proximity is important. He said that regarding topography it's not solely about flat sites. He said they can have sites that are sloped and build subbasements that are good for long term storage or secured parking. Lewis said a typical construction project will have 6%-8% of the cost spent on on-site development. He said his group determines for each possible site whether the on-site development will cost over 8% of the allotted budget and if it's over they would rank it negatively. Lewis said the building would be approximately 160,000 square feet in size and they would have to take into account utilities and land acquisition.
R. Sullivan said it is in the interest of the public that they know the Board of Supervisors hasn’t discussed this report with the Durrant Group prior to this. Lewis said the report is what Durrant has looked at within Johnson County with no input from the Board. R. Sullivan said the categories used by Durrant for assessing sites are subjective to some degree as are the scores given to the sites. Lewis said that is why he wanted to treat the meeting as a preliminary draft discussion so he could get feedback from the Board and community and make the necessary adjustments. Iowa City Resident Richard Twohy asked why the Board hadn't met with the Durrant Group before this discussion. R. Sullivan said it was determined that this was the best way to present the information and stated that no decisions have been made as of yet. Lewis said he was open to meeting with citizen committees in the future.
Lewis said the first site has to do with the existing courthouse site, which would mean the street there would have to be closed if the site were to house the jail and courts combined. He said a number of the sites can be looked at as court-only, jail-only, or a combination of both. He said that there are two sites out of six total, that they looked at as jail-only because the site size and configuration could not accommodate a jail and the courts both. R. Sullivan asked if there is a reason that it cuts the block in the south half as opposed to the whole block. Lewis said the reason for that is because of the amount of land area needed for the initial construction of the project. He said prudently the Board would look at trying to acquire the whole property for the long-term expansion. He said the complexity of land acquisition is a major observation they wanted to point out because the County would be dealing with the Federal Government with the land to the south. He said that they would be dealing with trying to accommodate the Government's parking needs and some kind of land configuration trade.
He said the existing jail property could be abandoned or sold which might aid in the land acquisition and transfer process. Lewis said the availability of parking is always an issue associated with a downtown location. He said the first site has a natural fall that allows for secured parking underneath the building that would accommodate both law enforcement needs as well as the judges' and courts needs. He said that in his assessment it is an excellent site because it's known for court and other judicial activities. He said that there is connectivity to the business community and the community extending, which is a positive thing. He said that it would require a vertical solution for construction, with a four or five-story addition onto the building. He said that would impact the operational costs and said that his group would examine that in more detail. He said that if the Board signaled they were interested in pursuing the site they would describe the impact operationally of what vertical movement means versus horizontal movement.
Lewis said they were looking at two other areas. The second possible site would be north of the new Health and Human Services Building. He said if they decided to continue to expand the complex to the north it would sit up against the railroad. He said there are vertical changes on the site in terms of site grading and slope so it is the same situation in terms of secured parking below. Lewis said the whole size of the block could be viewed as a combined courts and jail project. He said that as with the first option, they were only considering the site at half a block for jail-only.
Lewis said the third site is off of Highway 218 and Oak Crest Hill Road. He said that there are three sites in the presentation that look at what happens when they look at the periphery of the City of Iowa City. Lewis said land acquisition costs would be slightly lower, but there are sewer extension and utilities issues. He said one big positive of the site is the room for flexible growth and the ability to acquire the land needed for building the site in a horizontal solution to meet the long term needs. Lewis said the disadvantage is being away from the business community and district where people are accustomed to dealing with these issues and having the professional connectivity to the attorneys, elements, and public transportation that is needed. He said that he noticed that some overhead power is running immediately along the site to the east which would be adequate to pull off the power needs of the new building. Lewis said he was not able to completely understand the underground utility and sewer and water-related issues there, but he assumed that as Iowa City grows the opportunities would present themselves appropriately.
Lewis said that Melrose Avenue is on the list solely because it was included in the former referendum and he wanted to look at it again. Neuzil said most of that land is not available any longer. R. Sullivan confirmed that, but stated that the County owned approximately 150 acres to the south and wanted it to be evaluated. Lewis said he would go back and look at it from that perspective. R. Sullivan said it was owned by the Federal Government. Lewis said that Iowa City is growing more to the north and further down to the south with some development on Highway 1. He said that in his opinion Melrose Avenue might not be the best location. R. Sullivan said the proposed site does have public transportation access and the County owns it. He said the whole site needs to be reevaluated. Lewis said he would go back and do that.
Lewis said that he looked at the area off of North Dubuque Street and the growth of the community and connectivity to Coralville and on north. He said he had thought about whether the site had some possibilities from an outsider's perspective. He said there are a lot of positives about the area in terms of accessibility not just for Iowa City, but also for the entirety of Johnson County in terms of offering a centralized location. Lewis said he could appreciate that there might be some complexities there with the current residents in the area and accounted for that in the site's score. He said that location-wise, the Corridor along Interstate 80 makes a lot of sense if the Board wishes to get outside of the downtown Iowa City area.
Lewis said the final site is proposed to analyze the possibility of locating the Justice Center on the east side of the Administration Building, which would require the closing of the street to the east of the building. He said there might be issues with water flow from the creek and commented that the Justice Center would be better suited if it could be moved towards the Iowa City National Guard Armory. Lewis said if the possibility ever arises that the Armory is relocated, there would be a natural opportunity to extend in the area.
M. Sullivan said that is part of the issue with the site on Melrose Avenue because the Iowa City National Guard Armory is relocating there. Harney said that move is about a year and a half away. Neuzil said in a year and a half to two years, the Armory property will belong to the County and will basically be an empty lot. Stutsman asked if the Board was directing Lewis to evaluate the current Armory property. The Board of Supervisors agreed and asked Lewis to include the surrounding area. Lewis said he is concerned about water issues for the area and added that the site is only big enough to support a jail. He said if they choose to build on the site it will result in transportation issues and the division of courtroom activities between the two buildings.
Lewis stated that those were the six he looked at thus far, but commented that he was open to looking at other sites. He said that his scoring system weighs potential sites the same. He said he ranked the current site of the Courthouse and the site on Dubuque Street the highest because they will have the strongest connectivity to the growth of the community and business district. Lewis said that the next best choice would be the site off of Highway 218 because it would allow for horizontal solutions. Stutsman said that the fifth site is home to one of the last old-growth timbers inside of Iowa City and because of that the feasibility of acquiring the property is nonexistent. Harney asked if the second site could accommodate both the jail and the courts if the whole block is used. Lewis said it could, but only in a vertical solution. He added that the Board needs to take into account building shelf space on the building for future growth and they would have to construct empty floors. Stutsman asked Lewis if he had looked at the area around the old Wal-Mart and Menards buildings. Lewis said that he had not. R. Sullivan said the Board hadn't had a chance to talk to Lewis before this. He said there are properties on Highway 1 on the southwest side of Iowa City that are vacant.
Stutsman said that it was her understanding that there are sewer extensions out by Oak Crest Hill Road because of a warehouse built off of Izaak Walton Road. R. Sullivan said it seems that a lot of the sites discussed cannot be scored until they talk to Johnson County Planning and Zoning, the Iowa City Fire Department, and the owners of the properties in question. He said the whole scoring system would not make any sense until these additional steps are taken. He said the way the building is designed can also have a huge impact on the operation costs, including the number of deputies required to run the jail. He said one of the considerations he would have is deciding which designs are able to be run more efficiently and which designs will cost more to operate. R. Sullivan said that considerations such as those are important enough to warrant their own individual score because the resulting costs could be significant and certainly something the County will have to bear. Lewis said the resulting costs are in the assessment, but are not readily obvious. He said he ranks sites in a manner to determine how operationally they will affect costs and would like to list it as a separate line item so that it is not buried. Stutsman said they also need to separate neighborhood impact and community and future development. She said the community is very vocal on projects and it will make a difference on how the community views it particularly if they're putting the site close to residential neighborhoods. Lewis said that he'll separate the items. Neuzil said something that needs to be decided on soon is whether they're talking about a jail only or a Justice Center. He said that question has to be answered before any more progress can be made because if they are talking only about a jail then the Board needs to decide what is going to be done about the Courthouse and court services.
Neuzil said he wanted the Durrant Group to examine whether the current Courthouse could expand or allow for annexation around it. He said that originally the County had a jail-space problem and a court-space problem and they wanted to see if both could be solved at the same time. He said the concept of a Justice Center was created as an opportunity to save dollars by combining two problems into one problem. He said the Board and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) have been going through the process for two or three years and have discussed the possibility of a Justice Center. He said if they are potentially leaning towards jail-only sites then they need to at least discuss the needs of the current Courthouse. He said it is unfortunate that the Board of Supervisors has been unable to engage in this dialogue until now because they are behind in terms of where they want to be. He said the size and scope of what they're going to need is going to be expensive. He said he believed the project concerns were about cost-efficiencies and the future. He said those were the things they needed to consider as they're designing and building a new facility to last 100 years out. Harney said that in looking at the existing Courthouse concept he was surprised to see Lewis showing only half the lot of the Federal Building. He said it would be great if they could utilize the old courthouse but he doesn't see it being efficient. Harney said looking at the historic site they would take away from it if they built a big building on the south side of it because they'd be burying it similar to the Hospital. He said regarding the security issues of keeping prisoners separate from jurors they would need a lot more space than what was being shown.
Harney said the Board needs to look at the totality of the picture and decide how to do the separations for the Courthouse and how the facility might expand in the future. He said he was very disappointed with the recommendations because the Board has already talked about sites mentioned and said he was expecting a larger picture of other locations that might have come up. Harney said jailhouse alternatives need to be worked into the concept and they need to be tied more into the court services. Lewis said he appreciated the comments but said that there is a use for the existing Courthouse, particularly in site one, with a separate new security entrance in the new building linking back to the existing Courthouse to eliminate old security problems. Meyers asked if Lewis was suggesting that some of the existing courthouse functions could remain in the existing courthouse and the ones requiring more security could be carried out in the new annex. Lewis said yes, the new secure entrance could serve the entire complex and that structurally there are a lot of good reasons to keep the existing courthouse intact. Meyers asked if conceivably they could use the existing courthouse for Clerk of Court duties or Small Claims Court. Lewis said yes and stated that they could also use it for meeting room space and other things that will not need heavier security. Harney said the building would be on the Federal Building lot with court services moved forward tying into the courthouse and being able to utilize the new area as well as some of the old court services. R. Sullivan said there will obviously be operational savings to having the jail and courthouse adjacent to each other because individuals could be walked down the hallway to their appearances. He said there could be additional operational costs if the building has to be vertical. He said that if they put a jail separately somewhere and do improvements to the current Courthouse area then they would still need to transport people. He said that was an operational cost, but stated that perhaps the low operational costs of running a jail that’s more efficient would offset that.
R. Sullivan said the Board needs to find out what the total costs will be for each concept because one could be much higher or lower than another. Lewis said it is important for him to get feedback so that he can go back and get the answers to the questions the Board is asking. He said that they probably wouldn’t get operational costs on all six, but if they could narrow it down to two or three such as a rural site, a downtown site, and a vertical vs. horizontal site, that would be efficient. He said at that point in time it'll be less about a particular site and more about the two driving concepts. Stutsman asked if the Board wanted to give direction on which sites should be analyzed specifically. R. Sullivan said to be completely honest he thought they had done that a year ago. Stutsman agreed. R. Sullivan said that he was frustrated with the process. He commented that he didn't think it would have been that difficult for Lewis to have found out that the Melrose site is now unavailable. Stutsman said she was very disappointed. Lewis apologized. He said that he thought he had gotten the information that was needed and that he was at fault. Stutsman said she shared R. Sullivan's feelings. She said that she expected that the Board would be at the point of evaluating the pros and cons of each site and determining how to narrow them down. Lewis said his frustration is that he has been unable to have one-on-one discussions with the Board and that he will take the blame for not creating an environment conducive to having such discussions sooner. Stutsman asked what information Lewis needs from the Board to move forward so a finished report can be given in the next few months. Lewis said he needs to know if the Board is interested in looking at a combined justice complex or interested in having the jail and courts separate. Stutsman said she didn't think there was any way to consider it. She said that she was interested in looking at a combined facility. She said all they had heard with the feedback over the past year is how inadequate the current Jail is. She said there might be a possibility of using the existing site for office space and that she needs to know what the possibilities are for utilizing the existing site.
R. Sullivan said he didn't think the Board could answer Lewis's question because he did not feel Lewis had done what the Board expected him to do. He said, for example, he cannot weigh out the operational costs because he was expecting to have the overall costs of operating each system. R. Sullivan said he cannot judge it and that if Lewis comes back later and tells him it's going to cost $7 million more a year for option A, then his decision is made. He said Lewis is asking the Board to make a decision when the Board had hired him to provide them with more information in order to make it. Lewis said he can appreciate the Board's situation, but his question is what information the Board still needs from Durrant for the final report. He said regarding operational costs he has the information he needs and he said the timing is a little off. Lewis said he does not need any more input or information from Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek or the courts and that he just needs the current discussion to happen. He said he can write the final report and give the information the Board they need, which might help the Board with the next step. He also said that he can put the operational costs on the table. Lewis apologized for the frustration level, but said that it could be the result of just now having a discussion that should have happened two months ago. He said he would have the information the Board needs in front of them within 10 days. R. Sullivan said frankly he cannot answer a lot of the questions Lewis is asking because the 'buts' and 'ifs' make all the difference in the world in terms of decision-making. He said that he knows there are things that a lot of the departments in Johnson County would like to have in an ideal world, but their department may or may not get those things. He said there are also things the Board of Supervisors would like to see, but there is going to have to be some compromise.
Lewis said the Board should wait to make a decision until he can comes back to put more information in front of them. R. Sullivan said he thought that information would be in front of the Board six months ago, and then two months ago, and then today. He said he is very frustrated that the information is not here for them today. Lewis said six months ago it would not have been possible to have the information because his group was in the information and data-gathering stage. He said two months ago it would have been possible to have the information for the Board, but he had internal issues come up. Neuzil said the process has been going on for several years and that a couple months will not make or break the project. He said the question is where they go from here and that for the most part Lewis did study the sites the Board had requested. Neuzil said he thought the concepts are there though the scoring will weigh a little differently when Lewis re-explores the areas that the Board wants him to focus in on. He said for the most part they are very close and although they are a few months behind, everyone should know that the jail will not be built in the next couple of months anyway. He said what needed to be examined are the County's space needs and that as Lewis gets better direction it will help the Board determine exactly what type of facility to build. He said the facility will be combined even if the jail and the courthouse are not in the same location. Neuzil said he wanted to reiterate that it is crucial to talk about the Courthouse issue and the Jail issue at the same time because both of the issues are at the forefront of real need in the community. He said a big issue the Board will have to deal with is the cost issue and they will have to determine how much residents will be able to afford and/or tolerate.
Neuzil said by giving Lewis more direction the project could get back on track though it is unfortunate that the Board members weren't able to have dialogue with Lewis until now. He said for folks watching them on television it would be a neat process to witness. Neuzil reiterated that the Board needs to get back on track, identify where the locations ought to be, and solve the two issues at once. R. Sullivan said he wants to follow up because he thinks Neuzil is making a very important point. He said he wants to make sure the majority of the Board agrees. Stutsman agreed. She said the Board has waited long enough so that the Courthouse is now as much a critical issue as the Jail so she is definitely interested in looking at a combined project. R. Sullivan said the Board should look at addressing both space needs at the same time. Meyers said he would like to see a list of pros and cons as to the feasibility of both functioning together as opposed to separate facilities. He said he would also like to see a list of pros and cons of locating the facility in downtown Iowa City near the current courthouse as opposed to in an outlying area. Meyers said one detail he did find helpful is the square footage needs for each facility because now that the County has the Health & Human Services Building across the street at about 90,000 square feet, it gives him an idea of what size structure they are looking at for both the jail and court facilities. Lewis said his eye is not off the ball and stated there is information in the handout that he had given to the Johnson County Bar Association back in February. He said specifically it was a functional adequacy report that the Board should read because it has very good facts regarding the issues of the proposed complex. R. Sullivan asked if there was agreement from the Board members to have Lewis look at courthouse and jail space and whether the facilities would be adjacent.
Neuzil said if they were looking potentially at separate facilities it would be nice to know some concepts of how to use the existing Courthouse for annexation and court functions. He said it would be helpful to know if the County could feasibly take the existing Courthouse and add an annexation in order to have some cost savings. He said other communities across the United States have old courthouses that they have decided to either use for certain court functions or to build a new building. Meyers said that brings up an interesting point and asked if there was any use for the existing Jail and whether it can be tied into a new system. Lewis said after conferring with Pulkrabek it was his opinion that, given the number of offenders the County has in the Jail, which is sometimes 200 or 250 or 400, it would not be cost effective to run two jail facilities. Harney said he doesn't think the Board is looking at running two jail facilities, though the existing Jail could be used for office space with some remodeling. He said the Board was partially at fault regarding the Durrant Group's study because they haven't been able to correspond with Lewis and discuss things beforehand. Harney said if the new facility is put near the existing Courthouse they will have to purchase the Federal lot. He said if they are going to purchase the Federal lot, they've got to come up with equal space for parking before the Federal government agrees to a trade. Harney said that means the County will have to buy something else, pave a new parking lot, and present it to the Federal government. He said it will be time-consuming to get it accomplished and that he wants to see those costs in the final report when Lewis comes back before the Board.
Harney said he would like to see the possibility of an annex to the Courthouse with the Jail sitting on the Federal lot or take a second look at the corner down by Dubuque Street even if it means running into parking problems. He said those were things the Board would expect Lewis to come back with for the next meeting. Lewis said a related question is when in a best-case scenario the construction of the building will commence because with that information he can forecast the cost of construction appropriately. He asked if the Board makes it a referendum will it be a year and a half from now, which would result in construction being forecasted in two and a half years from now. He reiterated he needs to know what timeline he should be looking at from a capital cost side of things. Harney said they are probably looking at two to three years. He said the Board has been told to get the records out of the upper levels of the Courthouse because the floors cannot tolerate the weight any longer and are starting to sag. Harney said the safety and operational issues for jurors, prisoners, and deputies needs to be addressed soon. Lewis said if the Board is looking at spending two or more years in planning he would forecast construction cost number at around three years.
R. Sullivan said the election this year is in November and the new facility will undoubtedly require a vote of the public. He said it would not be possible for the issue to get on the ballot in 2008. Stutsman said they could always hold a special election. Lewis said it is his understanding that special elections legislation is changing and will allow them to be held four times per year. Stutsman agreed but said that at least they would not have to wait a whole year. R. Sullivan said they could run into even more public objection if the public feels forced to pay for the special election. Stutsman asked if special elections could be held in conjunction with other elections. Lewis said he isn’t sure of the new legislation. Neuzil said that it would be helpful if Lewis could project costs associated with construction two to four years out. He said that this would help the Board determine the need of completing the project sooner rather than later. He said the Board has been aggressive with building infrastructure in 2008 because construction costs seem to be going up by 15-20% a year. Lewis said he will do a two-year-out scenario and a three-year-out scenario. R. Sullivan said Lewis should do a scenario where the election is being held in November of 2009, one where the election is being held in November 2010, and one where the election is held in November 2012 because they are all very different in terms of elections. He said the 2009 election would have fewer people voting, the 2010 election would have more people voting, and the 2012 election would have everyone voting. R. Sullivan said those are scenarios the Board is going to have to consider when discussing what the public will accept.
Stutsman asked if the Board could give Lewis some direction regarding which sites they want him to look at. Stutsman said the first site is obviously one to consider. Neuzil said site one would require acquiring the entire block. Stutsman said Lewis can plan accordingly now that he knows the Board is talking about a joint facility and asked about the site north of the Administration Building. Neuzil said the second site would also take up the entire block and was actually part of the Johnson County Campus Plan originally showing the block as the future site of a jail or other facility. He said he assumed the entire block would be necessary and that they would have a parking ramp located along the railroad and old lumberyard. Neuzil suggested that Lewis speak with Johnson County Facilities Director Dave Kempf and M. Sullivan to get a better understanding of the County Campus Plan.
Stutsman asked about Oak Crest Hill Road. R. Sullivan said he would like Lewis to investigate the site further. Stutsman agreed. Neuzil said an advantage of Oak Crest Hill Road is the potential of potting that was part of the 2002 election. Stutsman asked about the Johnson County Poor Farm and said she feels it’s almost off the table with the Joint Communications Center being built there. R. Sullivan said he feels having the Joint Communications Center there actually makes it a more attractive prospect. He said it makes a lot of sense to look at land they already own especially considering it would cost the County $6 million to acquire the block needed for site two. Neuzil said he isn't interested in building the facility on the Poor Farm. Stutsman agreed. R. Sullivan asked why. Stutsman said she was considering accessibility. She added with the Joint Communications Center already being out there, she doesn’t think there is enough room for another big complex. She said there has been much interest in making the County Poor Farm a park area and that stated that that idea will be gone if they build the new jail and courthouse facilities there. Stutsman said she also thinks it will be a big issue to the residents living in the area. Neuzil said it brings the memory of an issue in 2000 when there was significant opposition to the location and a question of how to get students who had been arrested, back into Iowa City. R. Sullivan said he would have a hard time voting on anything else if the Board does not consider building on the Johnson County Poor Farm. He said it would be hard to inform the public that the Board decided to buy more land instead of building on the 150 acres they already own. Stutsman said she thinks the public will tell the Board that they want the County Poor Farm left as a green space. Meyers said there’s no harm in having the site further evaluated and going over a list of pros and cons. R. Sullivan said he would have a hard time voting on anything else without knowing the possibilities. Pulkrabek said there are a lot of residents who will speak up.
Pulkrabek said it’s obvious that Lewis just needs some direction. He said the County owns 150 acres and that he has had many people come to him asking why the County would spend $6 million to acquire land in downtown City of Iowa City when it owns so many acres out by the Poor Farm. Pulkrabek said that there are residents who will voice concerns regarding the potential use of the land. He said they should have Lewis evaluate the site so that the members of the public won't come back and argue that the Board did not look at land already owned by the County. Stutsman agreed. Pulkrabek said he feels R. Sullivan has a valid point. Harney agreed. He said that the City of Iowa City is going to be improving Melrose Avenue and the Highway 965 Extension is going to be coming from Coralville going south and a connection could be made if the right location is selected. Meyers said it’s worth evaluating the Johnson County Poor Farm even though it isn’t high on his list. He said Pulkrabek has a good point that at least the Board won't be open to the charge that they never bothered to look at the spot. R. Sullivan said the Board might have to decide at some point if having all five Board members in agreement is necessary or if just three members in agreement will be enough. He said he knows Pulkrabek and Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness would like to have unanimity and though that may not be possible, it should be a consideration. Neuzil said it is a big issue and said it was a 4-0 vote to put the Joint Communications Center out on the County Poor Farm. Stutsman said making the decision is still a ways off. R. Sullivan said it is a consideration the Board will have to take into account. He said Lewis will have to decide how important it is to have everyone on board. Neuzil said there will be some make or break issues and the real question is can there be a consensus for building because the Board does not always vote 5-0.
Harney said he really likes the location out on North Dubuque Street and Interstate 80 because of the accessibility it would offer Iowa State Patrolmen and officers from Coralville, North Liberty, and Iowa City. He said the problem with the site is that it would place everyone in the Johnson County Trailer Court and he doesn't think the Board can do that. Neuzil said he thought the facility would be on the KXIC side of Interstate 80. Stutsman agreed and said she thought it would be more north than south of Interstate 80. Neuzil said he doesn't anticipate the facility being further than Forest View Mobile Home Court. He said it doesn't sound like there is any interest to move forward. Stutsman said she did not know it would be so expensive. Neuzil said the expenses would result from buying towers and paying legal fees. Harney said federally KXIC can get the licenses for AM radio and because they're one of the last few in the country they won't give that up. Lewis said he spent some time looking up and down the Interstate 80 Corridor trying to think of sites that would make sense because of the implications of growth. R. Sullivan asked if the Board wanted Lewis to abandon the site. Stutsman and Neuzil agreed. Neuzil said that it would be unworkable unless Iowa City has interest in relocating Forest View Mobile Home Court to a new location, which would be hard to do. Harney said the majority of the trailers can't be moved. Neuzil said they should abandon the idea.
R. Sullivan pointed out the sixth site and said the consensus was to move the current box to the south and west over the current Iowa City National Guard Armory. Lewis asked who would be responsible for the demolition of the site and any environmental issues. Harney replied that the National Guard would be responsible for the environmental aspects and Johnson County will be responsible for the demolition.
Harney said at one point they discussed the possibility of closing Dubuque Street and putting it in the whole corner with the Iowa City. He said an issue is that it would affect some of the other businesses there. He said it was worth thinking about. R. Sullivan asked if they would be open to having two looks, including one that just took the Armory. Harney replied that they would have to take the whole thing if they are going to have parking and other things. Lewis asked if the demolition related issues were a part of this project or if it was something else they intend to do independently of the project. R. Sullivan said that they would be doing demolition either way. Neuzil said that as they look at the red box it does expand to anticipate the creek being the easterly side of the block.
R. Sullivan said that it was brought up that there were some properties on Highway 1 SW that Lewis could possibly evaluate. Neuzil said the Menard's property is the one that has been discussed in the community. Lewis said he saw a lot of benefits to being on Highway 1 from the standpoint of accessibility. Harney said that the downside is the requirement for a tower for their communications and with the airport they won't get it. R. Sullivan said he was interested in the area being explored. Stutsman asked when they would see him again. Lewis said that the earliest would be the first or second week of May. R. Sullivan said there were a number of people from the public present and asked if they would like to give comments.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Member Larry Wilson said that a few things from the chart on the first page need to be articulated. He said they need to look at things such the comparison of developmental costs as a separate element. He asked if public transit was available or if it could occur. He said they needed to look at impacts on the site. He said there would be some concerns if there is a definite site impact such as destroying the land and vertical operation efficiencies. Wilson said they should also be considering separate location inefficiencies. He asked what they were discussing for separate location inefficiencies, such as having the courts in one place and the jail in another or having some court functions in one place using the existing Courthouse and having the remaining court functions with the jail. He asked if it made sense or if they should rule it out. He said that other issues are accommodation of future expansion as a separate line item and accommodation of parking including relocation of anything existing on the site. He said that another issue is transportation costs of prisoners. Wilson said there is a competing factor and added that the chart needs to be re-evaluated for common understanding.
Iowa City Resident John Neff pointed out that the storage building is another facility that hasn't been discussed. He said that he believes Johnson County also rents storage space for the Clerk of Court which is a big deal for operational efficiency. Neff said the fact that the records aren't stored at the Courthouse is a big problem. He said that the Sheriff has a tremendous amount of equipment, a lot of records, evidence, and by not including that, an important factor has been left out. He said that it makes a big difference in operational efficiency of both the courts and the Jail and Sheriff's Office to have adequate storage on site. He said they need an emergency power supply and emergency supply at the Jail. He said he has seen communities where they had common emergency power supply and storage facilities for both the Sheriff's Department and the Police Department. Neff said that was a really big step and people don't think about that. R. Sullivan asked Lewis if they included any of that. Lewis commented that the programmatic side of the project, talking about the last 160,000 total square feet, accommodates bringing in evidentiary storage into the justice complex so the current operation would no longer be needed. He said in regard to emergency power, the capital construction cost site is designed to accommodate the code requirements and the needs for emergency power for the facility. R. Sullivan asked if the design included off-site record storage. Lewis said yes, programmatically the design would pull it in.
Iowa City Resident Richard Twohy said he is not a member of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC), but has attended nearly all of their meetings during the last two years. He said he wants to be sure they take into account the direction of demonstrated best practices research in terms of the population they house under restraint. Twohy said one of the key areas has to do with what is described as co-occurring disorders, or people with mental health issues and substance abuse issues. He said this has displayed itself as one of the few aspects that is amenable to human repair in the sense of getting people in a circumstance where they are able to get off of the "revolving door" circumstance. He said it involves what has been described as integrated treatment, something that the State of Iowa has long had a barrier about as a public policy concept, but they have to change. He said the change is crucial from the current status where mental health support in terms of readjusting peoples' lives, is available on a County basis but they can't spend a nickel on substance abuse issues. Twohy said it has to end because the continuing costs and projections of a jail population coming back around depend on the implementation of integrated treatment. He said it means the same support team, the same issues, the same time and place in the jail together with a client who wants to comply with those things. He said integrated treatment works and the evidence is very strong. He said they need to make sure the plan for the jail includes enough beds and facility access and support so that the process can take place in an ongoing way. Twohy said the atmosphere will be better in terms of community support for the idea of a combined Justice Center. He said it is a need that can be identified and the care the Board is taking in making decisions is evident and will make a big difference to the community.
R. Sullivan said in light of Twohy's comments Lewis should discuss the issue that the CJCC brought up about there being no space for alternatives. Lewis said the issue has been considered and that his group has spent a considerable amount of time in the past year and a half studying co-occurring disorders, mental and medical health-related issues, and the correction system and its impact on community-based corrections as well as the effect of that on the detention level and the County level. He said treatment space is very necessary and important in the jail environment to help curb and change the direction. Lewis said his group has been looking at ways to deal with dormitory environments that are less expensive construction-wise and ways to bring classroom environments into the design so that treatment and program space can be infused. He said it all plays into the projection his group does in terms of the number of offenders they are looking at in the future. He said that the research they’ve done looks at changing the curb about 10 to 15% as the new strategies get put into play. Lewis said that it would not significantly change the number of figures in how they look at the jail environment and the number of people, but it would have an impact and ten or fifteen percent is a decent one to consider, especially as they look at the custody levels in taking them from a less secure environment to a more medium environment and allowing for those programs.
Stutsman asked about the second site north of the Administration Building and asked if the whole block could be considered having it adjacent to the Health and Human Services Building. Lewis said he heard that and it was part of the consideration process. R. Sullivan said Lewis would be in charge of getting in touch with M. Sullivan concerning getting the information to the Board and arranging the meeting. Lewis said that they were going to look at the first or second week of May 2008.
Neuzil said it would be very important to know the cost associated with renovating the existing Courthouse to help determine if they could do two separate projects or just one. He said it would be helpful in determining if they should add on to the present Courthouse or if that would be cost prohibitive compared to building a new facility like the current one across the street. Lewis stated that they were waiting to see what they would be renovating the facility for. He said they needed to give the Board of Supervisors two costs. He said that one was the critical maintenance item cost associated with what it's going to take to maintain the building in its current form and the cost associated with the change. Harney said it was too bad they didn't know where they were concerning the Armory. He said that if they had some more information, they could potentially use it partially for some court services, build a jail with it, and build the new Administration Building north of the jail.
Deputy Auditor Dana Aschenbrenner said he was there to formally present the FY 2007 Audit Report. He said it was released on March 28, 2008. Aschenbrenner said the Audit Report consisted of the Independent Auditor's Report, a Component of Management, discussion and analysis, basic financial statements which include the Government-Wide Financial Statements, and Priority Fund and Agency Fund Financial Statements. He said there is also a section called Required Supplementary Information and a follow-up section of other supplementary information. He said the most important thing from the perspective of the Auditor's Office is the information contained in the Independent Auditor's Report from the Independent Auditor Eide Bailly out of Dubuque, Iowa. He said it summarizes in their Auditor Report in paragraph three that in their opinion the financial statements referred to present fairly in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Johnson County as of the date of the end of their last fiscal year, which was June 30, 2007. He said respective changes in financial position and cash flows were applicable. He said that in summary, the County received a "clean opinion," which is what they strive to get. He said there is a lot of information in the audit. He asked if there were any questions.
Harney said he had read through the audit and didn't see anything that would need to be addressed differently, unless Aschenbrenner had seen something in his office. Aschenbrenner said there was nothing serious or anything that they were concerned about in the audit. He said they are always striving to make the project more streamlined and get other departments involved. Aschenbrenner said they relied heavily on other departments to report information to them and they try to educate the departments about items they should consult with them about so that they can disclose them. He said that the main thing from their perspective as part of the Auditor's Office, is to be transparent and to make sure their Independent Auditor Eide Bailly is well aware of their situation. R. Sullivan asked if there were further questions. Stutsman said she appreciated Aschenbrenner giving the Audit Report since they dealt with the taxpayers dollars. She said that she wants taxpayers to know everything is in order, the audit was clean, and the Auditor's office does a good job.
M. Sullivan said that R. Sullivan informed him that on the evening of April 29, 2008, the Board of Supervisors would be attending Earthapalooza. He said the Sierra Club of Johnson County has provided the Board of Supervisors with a certificate acknowledging them for signing on to the Mayor’s Cool Cities Climate Initiative.
M. Sullivan said he had placed the issue on the Board's agenda the previous week on April 17th, 2008. He stated that they had received their proposal from Maximus Financial Services, who do their cost allocation services for the County. He said that their three-year agreement was due to terminate July 1, 2008. He said they submitted a new three-year proposal. M. Sullivan said that during this time they also received a proposal from a company called Cost Advisory Services, Inc. (CASI) as well. He said he had talked to the Board about this last week. M. Sullivan said that they then received another proposal from Maximus that was a little less than the original proposal. He said that he talked to representatives from both CASI and Maximus to invite them to talk to the Board about their proposals. One of the things that came out of the discussion was part and parcel to Item B, which would be discussed later. He said it was the practice of the Board to not submit RFPs for services like this in the past on a regular basis. M. Sullivan said the discussion may be more appropriate in the future for the Board to talk about how to handle it. R. Sullivan pointed out that they did have the issue scheduled in for May 2008 to discuss under Key Issues and the how and when the Board entered into these types of agreements. Stutsman stated she wanted to hear from the Auditor's office if they had any feedback about either group. She knew they had used Maximus for a number of years, with their bid being much lower, with no known problems. She thought that it was interesting to her that over 80 counties used cost advisory service and she didn't know if the Auditor's office had any insight into the popularity of cost.
Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett gave a little background on the situation, explaining that the CASI header, Ray Handley, once was a part of Maximus. He said that because of Handlen's services, Maximus contractors were renewed. Handlen started up his own company and a large number of counties followed him to his new business. Slockett said they didn't have any trouble with Maximus but that they have had a very good working relationship with Handlen through the years. Slockett stated that, for that reason, he recommended switching to CASI. Stutsman asked if there was an issue of new people coming with Maximus and not having a consistent group that dealt with county issues. Slockett said they hadn't been doing it long enough to have a lot of change. He said that it was based more between a good working relationships and the institutional knowledge that Ray Handley has. Slockett said this was true not solely for Johnson County, but other counties as well and that gives him a slight edge. Harney said that Maximus has a lesser cost. Stutsman said there was a three hundred fifty dollar difference between the two. R. Sullivan said that since this was a professional service, they wouldn't have to bid for the service, although they would have to choose based on other things than price. However, price was a factor they were considering. Stutsman said she was fine with going with the Auditor's Office recommendation. She said that there's a lot to be said with people that are familiar with the County and work here and the efficiencies that are gained by having someone that has had those past experiences. Harney pointed out that CASI wouldn't be new going into the project. He said that they had no dissatisfaction with either one. Harney said he would rather stay with the one they had, referring to the cost. Neuzil said they would decide between the two the following week. R. Sullivan said they could move it forward. Neuzil said he would like to give the process a little more time to give it more of a review
M. Sullivan said they should get the project done before the end of June 2008 since the current agreement would end by then but preferably sooner. Meyers said he was okay with the Auditor's recommendation. He pointed out there was a slight difference in the cost, but it wasn't very much. He said he liked the idea of the continuity of the individuals who are doing it. Stutsman said it was interesting that so many counties went along with it. A Maximus manager stated he had been doing cross plans and piling for the past six years and thus was knowledgeable about things going on in Iowa Counties. He stated that Maximus is a nation-wide firm, and that the financial services division has over 250 professional consultants. He said that one of the things that happened periodically, the last time being three years ago in Iowa, everyone in the office left, and they were able to pull in people from other offices to come in and complete all the cost plans. He said that it was one of the advantages they had over CASI. If something were to happen to him, he wasn't sure what would happen to the cost plan preparation. He said that in their Midwest region, consisting of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and North Dakota, they had eight consultants with over one hundred years of experience in preparing cost allegation plans. Neuzil asked where he was located at. The Maximus Manager stated he was from Madison, Wisconsin and that he took care of the eastern portion of Iowa. He said that he spends on average three days a month in Iowa attending meetings, getting information for cost allocation plans and actually preparing them.
R. Sullivan stated they would move the proposal forward to the next week for a formal vote.
M. Sullivan said they had a discussion last week about some submissions for requests for proposals to provide financial advisory services related to the upcoming $20 million Johnson County Conservation Bond Referendum Issue. M. Sullivan said that three companies were presented to him. He stated that the three current companies were from the current Financial Services used and include Springstead and Associates, Speer Financial, Inc., and Piper Jaffrey Companies out of Des Moines. He said part of what they would do is deal with the debt issue development and oversight, which would be critical. They would also deal with investment programming, arbitrage rebate management, and the continuing disclosure. M. Sullivan asked if the Board would be interested in considering any of those three or if they wished to remain with Springstead for the project. He said that at the next Key Issues meeting they could discuss how they would approach those in the future.
Stutsman asked how they would be paid. She wondered if it would be according to the amount of the bond. M. Sullivan said yes. Stutsman asked if they were talking about a sizable about. M. Sullivan stated that if the referendum does not pass, then there will be no fee charged by any of the three financial planning services. Harney said that any fees would come out of the bond if it is approved. Neuzil asked if they would need to review all of the services or if it is something they could get a recommendation from a particular entity. He said sometimes they would go into it individually as supervisors and other times they would take a recommendation. M. Sullivan said he didn't have proposals, but if they wanted to do that they would have to send the information out to the financial service companies and have them respond to the Board. Neuzil said he hadn't seen any to review yet. M. Sullivan replied that one individual actually contacted him about interest with working on the project. Since they are putting this on the ballot, these financial advisory services are aware this is something that is coming up for the Board. Stutsman wanted to know if there was skill with someone benefiting the County better than those who were doing the same thing. She said she didn't know enough about the project to know if one could serve the County better than another. M. Sullivan said part of the agreement was that when they get responses if they do request proposals to come in, that would be some of the elements they would write into the responses. M. Sullivan said that they hadn't done the process enough to be able to say they see differences in different financial advisory services. He said that historically, they've maintained the same company for some time.
R. Sullivan said one of his concerns is that the Conservation Board wants to get the language out to the public, but they can't do that until they get all the pieces in place. He said he was worried that a Request for Proposal (RFP) with a deadline in August would take a lot of time for M. Sullivan to create and could create an undue burden for the Conservation Board. R. Sullivan said that he was interested in the discussion of how they would enter into the contracts, but for now he would be interested in just using who they have been using in the past so they would not be held up. Stutsman asked if Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness had any thoughts. Lyness responded that the Auditor may have more ideas, but that they had used Springstead in the past. Lyness said that there would probably be a delay, however it was possible. She said she didn't really have any advice at that time, having little experience other than with Springstead for the County. She said that one of the things to find out from RFP would be what the experiences were for other counties with the difference financial advisors.
Slockett stated that Springstead used to have a representative, Tony Roetlin, who started helping the County with bond issues and debt issues, which the County increasingly uses as a growing county. Slockett said he was tremendously helpful, and he was reimbursed when the bond issue passed. He said that there are essentially no budgetary costs until a bond issue is passed. He said Roetlin was helpful to Treasurer Tom Kriz with the loans from Hills Bank. Slockett said they have utilized the Debt Service Levy for those things they were allowed to use. He added that Sprinstead has had some turnover and added that Roetlin is no longer working for Springstead. Slockett said Tom Calico, who had also once helped them, is no longer there as well. Slockett felt that Roetlin's position was a very important one in that it was very specialized and requires additional work with the Bonding Attorney. He said that the Bonding and County Attorney's time is very valuable and very costly to utilize, but these are people that work with these issues on a routine basis and they were very knowledgeable about them.
Slockett said that Speer Financial, Inc. is out of Waterloo and comes highly recommended by the Black Hawk County Auditor. Slockett said he had met a representative from Speer and stated that he seemed knowledgeable. Slockett commented that he felt Speer Financial, Inc. could provide the services cheaper. He said the County could do a better job of coordinating their information. He said that doing the RFPs would allow the Board to better understand what would be reasonable for them to expect and also to figure out how they are going to coordinate information and make sure that everything is correct. Slockett said that the decision is up to the Board. He added that there would be nothing wrong with continuing with Springstead. Slockett did offer though that he didn't think it would be wise to have one financial advisor for some of the County's financial projects and another financial advisor for others.
Slockett stated that doing the RFPs would clarify that situation and establish who they would be using for the next several years. Slockett said that with these types of financial contracts and audits, it is a good idea to perform RFPs once in awhile to ensure that they are getting a competitive price and to have a conversation with the people they are working with. Slockett said that he wondered why Springstead didn't step up to the plate and begin helping with the Conservation Bond right away. He said it seemed to him the Board had some questions that they needed answers to. He said that maybe Sprinstead was just waiting for the Board to give them the green light. Stutsman pointed out that Roetlin was great in that respect and was always available to answer questions. She said he provided a tremendous service to the County. Slockett stated that he didn't think Sprinstead had provided that kind of service since Roetlin. Harney said the Conservation Board is the one that has to have the bond issue put on the ballot and the Board did that. He said he thought that the money would be channeled through the County and go directly to the Conservation Board as the need arose. Harney asked why it is the Board's responsibility to pick a financial advisor and not Conservation Board's. Lyness said that the bond is for the County. She said that the Conservation Board doesn't have the authority to do the bond. Harney replied that he thought the whole process would be directed by the Conservation Board because the bond was done at their request and what they wanted. Slockett said that the financial advisors would be working with the Conservation Board. Stutsman said that she agreed with Slockett that the County benefits when they have just one person walk them through difficult issues. She said she also understood R. Sullivan's comment on the time element. She said she was unsure if they should do the RFPs or just go ahead with Springstead and hope it goes well.
Slockett said that if the Board wanted to go ahead with Springstead that would be fine, but he didn't think the process would take that long. Stutsman agreed and said if they could say to the companies 'a two week turnaround,' she thought they'd be fine. Slockett said they were ready to go because they essentially have a word processing document with their name and prices and send it out. R. Sullivan said that they need to have a discussion on the key issues, as the issues they are talking about were different from what they just had done one item earlier when they were not doing an RFP. Stutsman said that cost is a factor and it is a big project. She said it needed more scrutiny than what they talked about previously. R. Sullivan said that they didn't have guidelines for when to do an RFP and when to not. Slockett said they didn't have to do an RFP in the current case. He said whether they do one is totally up to the Board. R. Sullivan asked how the Board wanted to proceed. Neuzil said that they would have a Key Issues Meeting in two weeks and that it made sense to have some more discussion because he wasn’t ready to move forward with Springstead. Stutsman said she is leaning towards doing an RFP process. Slockett said that they could perhaps start the RFP process to get the ball rolling and then if they wished to they could reject or find others. R. Sullivan agreed that they needed to have the discussion and be more consistent, but commented that he thought the timing was horrible for the Conservation Board. Neuzil said it would just be two weeks. R. Sullivan said that they would be waiting until May 14, 2008 to see if they would do an RFP with turnaround. Stutsman said she was comfortable with that day and going ahead with the RFP from there. Harney agreed.
R. Sullivan said that he would ask M. Sullivan to write up a proposal. Stutsman said they didn't even know what they were charging. R. Sullivan said that they didn’t know what they were charging before either. Neuzil said that they hadn't had a bond referendum like the current one in a long time. Meyers said he was okay with the RFP process. Stutsman said that they could explain the situation to the financial groups so that they would better understand the turnaround. M. Sullivan said he would have a draft completed in no more than three weeks. He said he wanted to give everyone time to look at it. He clarified that the financial service agency does not write the ballot language, the Bond Council does. He said he would begin working on it.
Meyers attended a GIS Meeting, a Decat Meeting, an Earth Day Event, Liaison Meetings with Information Services Director Jean Schultz and Medical Examiner Administrator Mike Hensch, and a League of Women Voters Panel on Regional Government.
Harney attended a Joint Communications Center Meeting, a Sixth Judicial District Meeting, the ribbon cutting for ReMax Realty, an Earth Day Event, and the Emergency Management Board of Directors Meeting.
Stutsman attended the Rail Services Press Conference, a Flexible Benefits Meeting, a meeting on Rural Economic Development, Liaison Meetings with Schultz and County Engineer Greg Parker, the MH/DD Planning Council Meeting, the League of Women Voters Panel on Regional Government, and the Hoover-Wallace Dinner.
Neuzil attended the Hoover-Wallace Dinner and Liaison Meetings with Parker and Hensch. He announced that he would hold a Listing Post on April 29, 2008 at 11 a.m. at the Senior Center
R. Sullivan attended the Rail Services Press Conference. He said that he was part of a Public Leadership Group that meets with representatives from Linn County and the cities of Linn and Johnson County. He attended a meeting with ECICOG Director Doug Elliott and Linn County Supervisor Linda Langston. He also announced that he is part of the Livable Communities for Successful Aging Committee in Johnson County. He said that they have been working on outreach for smaller communities. He said that he also attended a meeting at Loan Tree with the Solon Senior Advocates.
Adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2008
By John Deeth, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on June 5, 2008 at 12:07 p.m.