MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
JANUARY 7, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Utilization Of The Vernon Research Group
Report From Alternatives And Treatment Opportunities Sub-Committee
Report From Public Awareness And Information Sub-Committee
Report From Facilities Planning Sub-Committee
Additional Comments From Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 4:03 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, and Rod Sullivan; absent: Sally Stutsman.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee members present were: CJCC Coordinator Bob Elliott, County Attorney Janet Lyness, County Bar Association Representative James McCarragher, and County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek.
Harney said Stutsman sends her regrets as she is unable to attend today's meeting. Vernon Research Group Business Development Manager Susan Todd asked if there were outstanding questions from the last meeting. She has talked with Vernon Research Group President Monica Vernon, who proposed a survey with a follow-up component, to learn what the public's perception is about a justice center.
R. Sullivan said there was a misunderstanding with a number of people who thought the only appropriate time to use Vernon Research Group was six months before a public vote. He pointed out that there are other ways to utilize Vernon Research Group. Todd agreed and asked if the Board has received any feedback from the Government Services Administration (GSA) regarding the Federal parking lot. Meyers said there is no definite answer, but it looks much more favorable than it did a month ago. Harney said he, Neuzil, and Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan met with representatives of GSA, who are enthusiastic about working with the Board. The GSA have to discuss the property options with other colleagues before responding to the Board. Todd said her questions pertain to location and cost. She said Vernon still thinks it is important to conduct a survey now, especially if the issue is expected to be on the ballot in November 2010. Neuzil said the Board has not established an exact timeline yet, but sooner rather than later would be best. He thinks at some level, the timing of the ballot initiative will depend on the public opinion gathered from a survey.
Todd recommended beginning with a ten-minute survey to determine what educational aspects might need to happen to accomplish the Board's goals. The survey would provide the Board with information, such as public awareness of the needs and the costs, have the individuals voted before on this issue, and are they interested and would vote on this issue. The results should tell the Board how much public education and marketing will be necessary before putting the issue on the ballot.
Todd asked, if the Board would like to put the issue on the November ballot, would the Board decision to put it on be in July or August. The Board agreed and then Todd suggested conducting a five minute follow-up survey at the end of May or beginning of June. Data collection and analysis will take a total of four weeks. She said that Vernon said she could do the survey in as little as two minutes but ideally five to ten minutes would be helpful to obtain more information.
R. Sullivan said he is more concerned about the first survey and would really like to see a baseline of public opinion. He asked if the two surveys could be bid separately and Todd said yes. Todd added that if the first survey reveals that public opinion is in line with the Board's goals and objectives, a follow-up survey may be unnecessary. Pulkrabek asked if the first survey would include questions related to when it would be best to put the initiative on a ballot. Harney said he thinks it will be tied to the current economic conditions, as well as the costs associated with transporting inmates to other counties. R. Sullivan said some of it depends on who responds and how. If people age 30 and under hate the idea, then a June vote is a lot more attractive than November. However, if the younger population is in favor of the initiative, then November is the more ideal time.
Todd explained the need for allowing enough time for the education component. It is essential to ask the right questions and planning is critical to the process. Pulkrabek said one major hurdle is figuring out how to pay for a justice center; there is some divisiveness among the voters. Harney said one of the good things is that the County is planning the budget now and it will go into effect July 1, 2009. Another issue is the state of the economy; no one knows when that will change. Harney said that so much of this process hinges on whether there will be an agreement with the GSA, and that can take time.
Neuzil stated he thinks there is interest in having Vernon Research Group provide a questionnaire for a survey. However, he thinks it is unrealistic to think the issue can be on the ballot in November 2009. That would require having hired an architect in order to determine the cost of the project; the cost will have to be included on the ballot. Todd asked if what Neuzil is saying is that a 2009 ballot initiative isn’t possible. Neuzil said he just pointed out the amount of work to be completed before a ballot initiative is ready. The Board hasn't targeted a date yet and it expects that the newly hired Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Coordinator Bob Elliott will help create a timeline over the next six months. The window of opportunity for a survey in Johnson County is different than other places; if input from a younger population is important, they cannot conduct the survey in May, June, July, or August.
R. Sullivan said he does not want to involve an architect before a public survey, because part of the issue is determining the level of public tolerance and how much the public might be willing to spend. Pulkrabek said he envisions two surveys, the first to learn the level of public tolerance and how they are willing to pay. Neuzil said he does not want to conduct a survey in March 2009 and not use the information until a year later; it will be outdated. R. Sullivan said he wants a baseline measure of the public's opinion. He challenges anyone to say they really know how the average person thinks about this issue. If a poll reveals 50% support the proposal, they could build on that, but if there is only 15% of the survey population supports the proposal, there is a lot of work to do.
Todd said she understands why a fall timeline based on the school calendar is of concern to the Board. She recommended the Board not shorten the process too much, because it doesn't know what the initial survey will reveal about the level of public knowledge and they may need to do a fair amount of education before next May. Neuzil said, if the first survey is completed in March 2009 and results are available by April or May 2009, they would not have something ready for November 2009. Pulkrabek said this is assuming the results are positive. Todd asked if they were thinking that if 60% supported it in March the issue could not be on the November 2009 ballot. Neuzil said there are other considerations such as whether they will be able to acquire the GSA property, and they still need an architect in order to determine a cost before this can go on the ballot. R. Sullivan said Neuzil is probably right about the timing; even if they got a really positive response in March; however, the Board still needs to know what that public opinion is. Neuzil said the data will get old, if they don’t put something on the ballot soon after the survey. R. Sullivan said at least they would have a baseline.
Harney said he feels that once they start the process, they need to continue, because starting and then stopping will require them to start over again. Elliott agreed and asked the Board how long before they know what location will be selected. Harney said it will be at least six months, if not more. Elliott said they don’t want to start anything until they are certain they can complete the whole process. He thinks it will be important for the County to have at least six months after everything has been decided to work on marketing and public information. They need to talk to the civic organizations and determine how people in the rural and urban areas are going to be informed and have their questions answered. Currently, they don’t know the location, cost, and how they are going to fund it. Elliott said the summer or November of 2010 is about the best they can hope for.
Todd said, if they will not know about the location for yet another year, that will affect the timing of the survey. Neuzil said it should not take that long. Harney said he hopes to know in four to six months. R. Sullivan said they need to do some concurrent planning; there is a chance they might not get to use the downtown location. There is also the chance they get the location and the public says they won’t give a dime, in which case it does not do them any good to have the location. Actions must occur concurrently with the understanding that time frames can be clumsy. He affirmed his position that there is no reason not to move forward now. Harney agreed. R. Sullivan said they should find out what people think right now; he doesn't see the sense in waiting to know if GSA is definitely available.
Elliott said he would like to meet with Harney and the Vernon Research Group to determine alternatives and to learn what specific public opinion information the survey can provide. He agrees that they should move forward with the understanding that most of the key issues are yet to be determined. Neuzil said the timing issue is difficult in Johnson County because the population is so transient. He said they can get some general information, making some assumptions about using the Courthouse location, then modify the plan if the GSA property doesn't become available.
R. Sullivan said he would still like to move forward with a survey and explained that Todd has met with the Board four times now and he feels like there has been no progress. Attorney Jim McCarragher said he sees value in conducting an earlier poll. The public can be surveyed to find out what they currently know about the needs for a jail and courthouse in the county. In the same sampling, they also could ask what information would be valuable in determining if they would vote for a courthouse or a jail. He is afraid to turn down the GSA site simply because they do not know if a justice center will be supported. The County could buy the property and use it for whatever they want. Neuzil said the GSA needs parking, so if the County purchases the property it will need to buy the federal government a parking lot. McCarraghar said they could do that anyway. He said is in favor of an initial survey to learn what the public knows now and what additional information would be valuable to the public.
Harney agreed and said the hang-up with this issue is that the GSA needs parking and the County wanted to combine that parking with the building of a justice center. McCarraghar said he heard there might be some kind of exchange. Neuzil said even if it is an exchange, the Board does not have the money, without the voters help, to buy the GSA property and provide them with parking. County Attorney Janet Lyness said if they aren’t going to build anything right now, the federal government can keep using the lot. McCarraghar said for groups like the Bar Association to help support the initiative, they would like more information. In the meantime, the other issues of finding an architect, determining the costs, and settling on a location can be pursued. He is concerned that asking people to pay $10, $20, or $30 million without even giving them the education they need to understand the issue will result in negative responses.
Lyness asked what an initial survey would cost. Todd said a ten minute telephone survey for 400 people would cost $18,045. A five minute follow-up survey of the same population would cost $12,600. There are other options such as dividing the follow-up survey into two, two minute telephone calls, the second one to determine how the public would vote. This all depends on what they learn from the first survey. Lyness asked if there is $18,000 in the budget should they want to try to conduct this poll before July 1, 2009. Neuzil said he thinks they have already determined that they will take the money out of the Sheriff's budget.
John Robertson said he was a leader in the past effort to defeat the proposal. He said they had a very easy time with that. It would be an error to assume that the political dynamics in the community are any different now. The individuals may be somewhat different, but the politics in the community are probably the same. The earlier proposal failed because it was a bad proposal, there was poor education, and opponents were easily able to exploit weaknesses in the project. There was a general consensus that there is a problem and there needs to be transparency about what to do to solve the problem.
Robertson believes there needs to be a far more concerted effort to resolve the issues and concerns before asking the public to spend its money. A key component was the taskforce that existed for a year to try to develop ideas about how to deal with this. Robertson works for the Public Defender’s Office and he enjoys this community for being able to find things for his clients to do besides sit in jail. Nevertheless, the project is a tough sell, because Johnson County is a community that tends not to like the criminal justice system. It continues to be important that there is transparency and an educational and informational effort underway. He said there is a general consensus on the Committee and with people in the know that the County needs to build a new facility sooner rather than later. Ideally, the facility should be in the area of the existing Courthouse. It is also important to continue the philosophical shift towards not jailing people and not just building a facility to warehouse inmates and make the criminal justice system more powerful. Robertson stated it is also necessary to involve the community. It is time to move forward on this issue.
Robertson said the economy is bad, but they do not really know when it is going to get better. They have an opportunity to buy some land and they should do so; even if they cannot build a new jail they will find some use for the land. He said they need to find out what the community thinks about this project. He encouraged the Board to move forward on the land purchase and drawings for the building project. If the survey reveals that 30% to 40% of the public is behind the project, that is good news. He thinks they need to move forward now, otherwise they will need to start over from scratch.
In response to R. Sullivan's concerns about making progress, Elliott said the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee is just getting organized and he asked for one to two months to meet with members and prepare a recommendation of where to go from here. There are a number of unanswered questions concerning marketing and survey research. R. Sullivan said he is still in favor of moving forward now as there is no gain in waiting two more months. Neuzil said by the February 2009 meeting they can expect to have determined the committee structure as well as subcommittee work and assignments. In the meantime, he thinks the Board can begin negotiations with Vernon Research Group for a survey design. In February the Board would vote to move forward or not. In March the survey questions would be ready, and by April the survey could begin.
R. Sullivan said that at some point Todd will want to get paid. Neuzil said that in February the Board will decide if they move forward with Vernon Research Group. R. Sullivan then asked what is expected from Todd up to that point. Neuzil said he would expect Vernon Research Group to prepare an official proposal to the core group, so they will have a proposal to vote on in February. R. Sullivan said ultimately, the Board has to vote, which is why he likes the idea of joint meetings with the CJCC. Ultimately the Board has to approve the funding, so if they want to do it they should just do it, instead of meeting with another subcommittee. Elliott said before the end of January, he would like to have conversations with Todd to find out what they can do. He wants to know what they recommend and how the information can be used in the planning process.
Lyness said they have actually had that presentation before. She, Pulkrabek, Harney, and a couple other people could meet with Todd, because they have a pretty good idea of what they want to do; they have been going over this for years. If the Board voted tomorrow to fund the survey, they could get it together. Todd said there is generally a contract to work on the specific questions. Harney said the bottom line is that at the last meeting, a majority of the Board chose to utilize and it was just a matter of time. Elliott said R. Sullivan, Neuzil, and Harney all agree to use Vernon Research Group to conduct the survey. He said he thinks the Committee needs another few weeks to determine precisely how Vernon Research Group will be used, what they will provide, and how that will be beneficial to the justice center planning progress.
Pulkrabek said he does not want to spend the next month working on this if a majority of the Board is not willing to do this. If they know that the Board is supportive, then the rest of them will do the work. Harney said Neuzil is pretty much on target with the timeline he presented earlier.
R. Sullivan said he would like the Board to take this up at the January 15, 2009, Board meeting. Neuzil said if it is on January 15, 2009, he would vote against it, because he does not know specifically what the Vernon Research Group will do. He would like to see a specific proposal of how they came up with $18,000. R. Sullivan said he has the proposal from them which is four or five months old now and since then, the cost went up $400 or $500. Neuzil said, until he gets an official proposal that shows the kind of questions they will be asking, it is hard for him to move forward; this is 20,000 more dollars they didn’t budget.
Todd said she does not yet know the specific questions they will ask. Neuzil said he is not asking for that, but he would like enough information to be able to explain to the public what they are spending money on. Todd said she can resend the same proposal and change the cost figures. Much of that proposal is not going to change. Neuzil said he has heard three different ideas from Todd today and he is waiting for a more definitive proposal with specific information, so he can explain to the public what the County is spending money on.
Todd said one option is a ten minute survey, followed up with a five minute survey, or a ten minute survey followed up with two separate two minute surveys. It is based on the Boards priorities. R. Sullivan said he has a proposal from October 3, 2007, and December 2007. He also has a PowerPoint Todd presented and said that anyone can access this information. The top end for the survey last time was $18,000. Todd said that is for a ten minute survey. Neuzil asked if that is what the Board has decided. He said that is all he is trying to understand.
McCarraghar said sometimes committees that fund or make appropriations are in favor of using a research group, spending up to $18,000, and authorizing them to begin the process of putting together the information. This way they will at least begin the process and the Board is not stuck saying exactly what it is going to be because it is still in process but they have at least authorized the process to move forward. It sounds like Vernon cannot do the questioning and will not engage in too much planning until they get confirmation that they will have a contract. He suggested the Board pass a motion stating that the Board is in favor of contracting with Vernon Research Group, authorize up to a certain dollar amount, and begin meeting with Vernon Research Group to design the survey and timeline. Neuzil said it sounds great.
R. Sullivan said he still wants to know if there are three Board members willing to put this item on the Formal meeting agenda for January 15, 2009. Meyers asked if they vote on January 15, 2009, how long it will be before survey results would be available. Todd said, if on January 15, 2009, they are authorized to move forward then within a week or two they could be meeting with Committee members to determine the questions. It takes about two weeks to settle on the exact questions and prepare the final instrument. That could take two weeks, depending on how many people have to sign off. It depends on how fast it is approved. Meyers said they need time to actually do the survey and compile the results. Todd said in Johnson County it will take two to two and a half weeks to conduct the telephone survey. After the survey they allow two or three weeks for the analysis before presenting a preliminary report.
Meyers said, even if the survey is approved next week, it will be a couple months before results are available for analysis. R. Sullivan asked if three Board members want to vote on this next week. Neuzil said he does not want to vote on contracting with Vernon Research Group on January 15, 2009. R. Sullivan said then that is enough for a no. Lyness proposed that Pulkrabek, Elliott, Harney, and someone else from the Committee get together with Todd to prepare a proposal, so they can vote on it as quick as possible. They can target January 15 or 22, 2009, but will agree to get it done as soon as possible. Many have heard the presentations before, so they have a good idea of the particulars. Harney said they can put it on the Board agenda to approve the funding, but it is up to the Committee and the Board to decide when to proceed with the survey.
Elliott said he asked if there is anything else the Board needs from him before he leaves. Harney said he would like Elliott to set a meeting date. Elliott said the reason he is motivated to chair the committee is that for the last few years he has been disappointed with the lack of progress and he does not want to be seen as someone holding up this process. Harney said Elliott was hired for a purpose and he expects him to start taking the lead with some of this.
Richard Twohy said he hopes everyone does not want to wait on a decision about the GSA property. It is important for the County to secure that property and then let government staff keep parking there until the County has something else ready to propose. Twohy emphasized the need for transparency in this process and said people need to know the facts.
Pulkrabek said the cost for FY07 has been determined and is available on the Johnson County Sheriff’s website. He said they are beginning to work on FY08 with University of Iowa Professor Emeritus of Psychology John Neff, but as of FY07 the cost to house an inmate outside the County has exceeded what it costs to house them in-county. He added that it is not easy to get that information out.
R. Sullivan asked how Johnson County arrest rates compare to other counties. He is unsure if the information is even available; however, people are beginning to ask for this information and he would like to respond to these requests.
Pulkrabek said based on information from the one year long Iowa Policy Project process, a greater percentage of alcohol arrests are made in Johnson County than in Ames, but there are more bars in downtown Iowa City than in Ames. Story County's Jail is in Nevada, not Ames and he thinks that the drive alone may sometimes deter officers from making an arrest. He makes this assumption based on his years of law enforcement experience. He said some arrest rate information may be available from the County Attorney's Office regarding State charges. Harney said variations in arrest rates are due to the layout of the community. There may be more arrests for intoxication but those inmates are not the ones clogging the Jail. Pulkrabek said correct; they are talking about criminals charged with very serious crimes and those are the people waiting to be tried. People arrested for public intoxication and OWI cycle in one day and out the next. R. Sullivan said he still thinks the information is important and since the public has requested this information, he would like to respond.
Lyness restated that Neff has been studying arrest rates. She said arrest rates need to be qualified; arrest rates for armed robbery and bank robberies are really high right now in the county. The public needs to understand the distinction between arrests for public intoxication and armed robbery. Meyers said it is a good idea to list the various crimes because the public perception is that the Jail is filled with drunken college students. He said the Press-Citizen newspaper article of a few weeks ago highlighted that alcohol arrests are actually a small portion of total arrests and the County Jail inmates are people who need to be removed from society.
R. Sullivan said the real question is how arrests rates affect the Jail population. Harney said there are a lot of numbers available to the Sheriff through the FBI statistics. Pulkrabek said the uniform crime reporting program is nationwide. Maybe this is something Elliott can work on with Neff, but they would need to narrow the scope for them, because it would be a fairly daunting task otherwise. R. Sullivan said he does not know enough to know how to narrow the scope but he feels it is essential to provide the public with information at some point. Neuzil said arrest rates were a big issue in 2000. He has always believed that Johnson County arrests too many people. Jail opponents argued that the University of Kansas had only four alcohol arrests for the entire college community. That argument was used quite a bit, Neuzil said, adding that people argued if a new Jail is built, it will be filled.
R. Sullivan asked if Lyness and Pulkrabek would be willing to work with Elliott to try to pull some statistics together. Pulkrabek said the Johnson County Sheriff's Office releases an annual report with arrest data. Blackhawk County produces a report also. The reports include county data only; they do not include Iowa City data. R. Sullivan said the information won't be very useful, unless it also includes the municipalities data. Lyness said she has a meeting on January 12, 2009, with all the chiefs and will ask about obtaining such data. Meyer asked if a record exists of the offenses people have been arrested for. Pulkrabek said yes and that is what is categorized by John Neff. R. Sullivan said he does not want to create more work for Pulkrabek but this is the kind of thing they hired Elliott to do, so it would be helpful if they helped him get started with this data collection. Harney suggested that most communities will have those statistics available.
Lyness said security is an ongoing concern at the Sheriff’s Office. She appreciates the two full-time deputies at the Courthouse, because it helps staff feel more secure. However, some structural changes within the Courthouse will need to be addressed if a new justice center will not be a reality soon. Lyness told the committee that on December 29, 2009, someone entered the Courthouse at 7:50 a.m. A staff member was at her work area, which is unsecured and completely open to the public. This member of the public was very threatening and angry; he demanded to talk to the Victim Witness Coordinator. The person was yelling, screaming, and using profanity at the staff member. He fortunately left when the staff member explained the office was not open yet and the Victim Witness Coordinator was not available yet. Then, within a block of the Courthouse, he was arrested when he almost hit some pedestrians. A University of Iowa police officer, not in uniform, saw him and flagged him down. The individual had a stick and was also armed with a knife and injured the officer. Lyness said the staff member was pretty nervous and immediately sent her an email about what had happened, not knowing the person had subsequently been apprehended. The revelation that the individual had a knife and a stick and attacked the officer was very frightening to the Courthouse employee. She said the office layout would have prevented her from getting away from that person. If a justice center is not going to become a reality soon, they must evaluate architectural changes within the Courthouse, so they do not have any staff exposed to potentially dangerous people with no escape route. The reception area in the Sheriff’s Office also has staff situated in an unsafe setting and anyone could jump over the counter to attack someone.
Neuzil said this discussion helps everyone understand the immediacy of the issue and that it is more than just a jail issue. He said Lyness is a voice in the community to let the public know that the justice center is more than a jail issue. She can provide actual examples of unsafe situations in the unsecured Courthouse.
Pulkrabek said he has been researching booking fees. He said, if the County wanted to implement a service charge on municipalities with each booking, it cannot be done that way. The law requires the arresting agency to submit a photograph and fingerprints to the State. Currently, those are all submitted by the Sheriff’s Office.
If they say they are going to implement a booking fee on serious misdemeanors and above, they can say that cities will pay the County a fee to take the photograph and do the fingerprinting - that would more likely be called a fingerprint fee. Alternatively, if a $10 charge for booking is assessed, then the municipalities could say they don’t think it is worth it to house their inmates at the County Jail and they would rather build a small holding facility. Then after they build the holding facility, they are going to bill the County for the costs. There is authority for this in a court decision stating counties are responsible for inmates, but not for photographing and fingerprinting. The County could implement a fee to photograph, fingerprint, and hold inmates or they could agree to not hold them until fingerprints and photographs are secured elsewhere.
Lyness said there are very few people fully trained to properly book inmates. It is preferential to have the Sheriff's Office do all the fingerprinting and booking, because then they know it is getting done correctly. The fewer people involved in this process reduces errors. When the new Jail opened, the decision was to have all the booking done by the Sheriff’s staff to minimize errors. Harney said another issue is fairness and equality. The County Jail has to accept DOT prisoners, State Patrol prisoners, and Campus Security State prisoners and Harney thinks those entities would be exempt from a booking fee. It would be unfair to charge municipalities in this situation.
Neuzil said he remembers the issue from 2000, because Linn County does have a booking fee. The question then was whether a booking fee would be an arrest deterrent to municipalities. At the very least they need to have a response to someone who asks why some are charging and others not. Pulkrabek said they could be talking about two different types of booking fees. If they are talking about a fee assessed to an arrestee when he comes to Jail that is what Linn County has. R. Sullivan confirmed that Linn County does not have the fingerprint fee, but they charge inmates a daily incarceration fee. Pulkrabek said that it is difficult to collect this fee.
Jail Alternatives Representative Jessica Peckover said they have worked with 386 individuals since the program started. In December 2008, they worked with 32 people. MECCA Services Clinical Manager Megan LaVelle said in December 2008, MECCA staff attended initial appearances on 31 days. They were requested to do 25 evaluations and 20 were completed. Of the five that were not completed, three were already in treatment and staff met with them to make sure their counselors knew that they needed to be seen. One person was a monolingual Spanish speaker. On the weekend they were unable to get a Spanish-speaking individual to meet with them and was the person released. She said one person refused and wanted to go home. Nine of the 25 evaluations were completed on weekends.
Neuzil said it sounds like Elliott is going to work with the core committee to re-identify the three subcommittees and begin focusing on a timeline and some other tasks.
Harney said Neuzil, M. Sullivan, and himself, met with GSA and reports they are very interested in having more activity around the Post Office area. They said that increased traffic in the area will be better for their services. Harney said they asked GSA about their plans for expansion and Harney reported the GSA said they have no interest in expanding in the downtown area. The recent new location in Coralville has eliminated any need they may have had for expansion. Harney said the GSA is very willing to work with the County and is enthusiastic about increasing foot traffic in the area. Their main concerns are parking for people using the Social Security Offices and the offices within their facility, and parking for their staff. The County would have to create temporary parking for the Federal Building employees. Neuzil said the group was enthusiastic. A more revitalized southern part of Iowa City is going to enhance the building's opportunity to rent the spaces within the Post Office. The essential thing they want is parking. He said M. Sullivan is going to follow-up with GSA.
Neuzil said they need to reschedule the February and March 2009 meetings because in February two members will be on the Chamber of Commerce Washington D.C. trip and in March, all members are invited to the Iowa State Association of Counties Spring School of Instruction. The next meeting is scheduled for February 11, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. and the following meeting for Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. They will resume the 1st Wednesday meetings schedule in April 2009.
Lyness said Elliott requested a list of official CJCC members. She said she doesn’t think anybody truly knows. Lyness said they have an open spot for a representative from the Iowa City City Council.
Adjourned at 5:22 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2009
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on July 13, 2009 at 1:20 p.m.