MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARCH 24, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Approval of October 15, 2008 Minutes................................................................................ 1
Update/Report/Discussion.................................................................................................... 1
Space Needs for County Buildings and Properties.................................................... 1
Employee Parking..................................................................................................... 2
Strategic Planning..................................................................................................... 5
Budget Process and Overview.................................................................................. 6
Open House.............................................................................................................. 9
Communications Committee Update: County Fair.................................................... 9
Communications Committee Update: Employee ID Badges/Cards........................... 9
Communications Committee Update: County Government Week.......................... 11
Property Tax Relief Due to the Flood Disaster........................................................ 11
May 5, 2009 Local Option Sales and Services Tax (LOSST) Election................................ 13
Set Date and Time for Next Meeting................................................................................... 16
Discussion from the Public................................................................................................. 16
County Supervisor Terrence Neuzil called the Johnson County Elected Officials Meeting to order in the Johnson County Administration Building on March 24, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
Elected officials present were: County Attorney Janet Lyness; County Auditor Tom Slockett; County Recorder Kim Painter; County Supervisors Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan; and County Treasurer Tom Kriz. Staff present was: Deputy Auditor Casie Kadlec.
Motion by Stutsman, second by Painter to approve the October 15, 2008 Elected Officials minutes. The motion passed unanimously.
Neuzil said he thinks the layout is close to being done on the Administration Building. He asked if the Space Needs Committee has met lately. Stutsman said no. Neuzil asked when the Administration Building remodeling will be bid. Meyers said later in the spring with completion in the fall. Neuzil said the plans are in place and that is why they wanted it on the agenda. Stutsman asked if everyone knows what is happening with the Administration Building remodeling. Painter said pretty much, but at first she did not know how Facilities Director David Kempf revamped the County Assessor's Office. Neuzil said Kempf took out the extra meeting space and made that into one of the offices, and made two more offices out of that. He said the County Assessor has enough offices now.
County Attorney Janet Lyness said if the Local Option Sales and Services Tax passes, and the County isn't going to do anything about the justice center for a while she would like an agenda item for the Space Needs Committee to discuss remodeling the Courthouse to improve security. She said that is something that needs to be on the table. Neuzil said the Space Needs Committee will be convening in the next month or two and will need to discuss that along with details about what is happening with remodeling in the Jail intake area, what the Ambulance Department is going to do with the Fisher Building, and what is going to happen with the old Public Health Building. Neuzil said the Space Needs Committee has quite a few things to discuss. Stutsman said she and Harney will convene a Space Needs Committee meeting during the next month. Neuzil said they have talked about Ambulance using some space at the new SEATS facility, so that should be an agenda item also.
Neuzil asked for a report from members of the Employee Parking Committee. Sullivan said the second floor of the parking ramp is open and the elevators are working. Sullivan said employees in the Health and Human Services Building are now supposed to be parking on the second floor and County vehicles should be parked on the first floor. He said there is a little bit of public parking in the ramp and everything between the ramp and the building is public space. Sullivan said some additional spots were opened on the west side of the National Guard Armory lot. Stutsman said the County is giving up the space at City Carton at the end of March, 2009. Sullivan said now the biggest issue will be deciding on the method of ramp access. He said, if a swipe card is used, it will need to be on a trial basis. Sullivan said that Kempf is committed to a trial period before charging for parking so the County can be sure it works correctly. He said they are still a while away from full implementation of the plan.
Neuzil asked if anyone else has received calls about the public wanting to use the second floor of the ramp. Stutsman said she has had inquires from people wanting to rent space on the second floor. She said someone even suggested the County build a third floor and rent it out. She said that maybe they should be talking about renting it out because they could probably fill the lot. Neuzil said the Space Needs Committee could discuss it. Meyers asked if Stutsman was suggesting adding another floor to the parking ramp. Stutsman said yes, if the County has enough inquiries from people wanting to rent space on the second floor. Neuzil said there will be much more space once the National Guard Armory building is demolished. He said then it would be more realistic to talk about reserving spots there or at Carquest. He said that once they start doing that they start getting into City regulations regarding taxes.
Sullivan said Kempf is very concerned because he does not have the staff to run a full time parking division. He said that if there are complaints about anything, Kempf will have to stop what he is doing to address those complaints. Sullivan said Kempf's preference is for the County to do this in such a way that it is very mechanized and there isn't a lot of manpower required. Stutsman said, if the County rented space in the lot, the renters would get access cards also. Stutsman said the issue should be discussed at a Space Needs Committee meeting. Neuzil said the Carquest lot space has a revenue generating opportunity. Stutsman agreed. Sullivan said the City of Iowa City is building a ramp on top of the old St. Patrick's Parish Hall. He said he doesn't know if the County would be starting to compete with the City, so it is something to consider. Neuzil said it would bring up additional issues to explore, such as insurance. Harney said he does not think the County will have a lot of extra spaces. He said there are other issues coming up with the justice center and most of the parking spaces will be used.
County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek arrived at 9:12 a.m.
County Auditor Tom Slockett said he understands that parking will cost $1.15 per day. Neuzil said $1.50 per day. Slockett said he understood it would be $25 per month, which would encourage people to not drive cars if they could car pool or ride a bike, or make other arrangements. He said that this is very forward thinking by the Board. Slockett said that this will be done in conjunction with payroll. He asked why the Board wouldn't consider asking Information Services Director Jean Schultz to take a look at writing a program that could pull in from the payroll system a person's biweekly pay and then charge a percentage. Instead of charging of a flat fee, employees would be charged based on their ability to pay. For example, Slockett would pay more than a beginning clerk or a part-time temporary person in his office, as would the other elected officials. He said one reason flat fees are charged is because it would be too much paper work to figure out what the income level is of an employee, but in this case, the information is readily available. Slockett said he would feel better if they would at least consider it. He said he discussed this with Schultz and she is willing to help.
Slockett said that Schultz is saying that she needs to be asked to look into it. Stutsman said that sounds like a great idea. Neuzil said it is worth exploring. Neuzil said the reason $1.50 per day for parking was discussed is because a one-way bus fare is $.75 and they don't want to have parking cheaper than a bus ride. Sullivan said that when Account Clerk II Carla Scherbring started going payroll by payroll, it did not work out as well. County Treasurer Tom Kriz said there are 27 pay periods this year instead of 26 and that's where it got complicated. Neuzil said there is also the option to deduct parking with Flex Benefits. Sullivan said this has become much more complicated than they envisioned. He added that Slockett, Schultz, and Scherbring are doing a great job working things out.
County Recorder Kim Painter said once it is determined how it should operate it can be done mechanically without a whole lot of trouble. Sullivan said each individual would still have the ability to pay less if they don't drive. Neuzil said that is the idea, but they don't want to make parking cheaper than a bus ride, or else there is no incentive. Slockett said the County is not paying for more than the maintenance on the lot so they could always raise the rates if they think they are too cheap.
Neuzil said he knows Kempf was discussing where elected officials and department heads within the Administration Building would like to park. One option was to continue to use the Administration Building parking lot back row and pay a flat fee of $25 monthly. Neuzil said it seems like there would be enough spots. Sullivan asked if $25 would be enough if they decide to adopt Slockett's suggestion. Slockett said it might be more than $25. Stutsman said they would have to figure out the minimum and maximum charge. Neuzil said in looking at what County employees earn, the Board of Supervisor's salary is in the lower 50% of published public employee salaries.
Slockett said he has received feedback from some employees in the Auditor's Office regarding parking and safety issues. He said some employees feel more comfortable parking close to the Administration Building. At the end of the day, Auditor's Office employees who work late often times move their cars into the Administration Building lot from areas which are further away, isolated, and not as well lit. Slockett said there are some concerns with the new parking area's distance to the Administration Building. He applauded the Board for making the Administration Building parking into mostly public parking, but wondered about allowing some senior citizen employees to continue to park in the Administration Building lot by including a grandfather clause. Harney said there are spaces for people with disabilities, but no matter where you park in the community, there is a risk. Harney said the Armory lot is right next door and is lit. He said if people need to move their cars at the end of the day that is fine. Harney said he would be more concerned with the parking ramp next to the Health and Human Services Building.
Kriz said that the plan has been that there would be enough parking in the Armory lot for everyone working in the Administration Building and Administration Building employees would not need to park in the ramp. He said the Armory lot would have a gated swipe card access but the Administration Building lot would remain un-gated. Neuzil said he has always assumed the staff of the Administration Building would park in the Armory lot and those in the Health and Human Services Building would park in the ramp. Slockett said that might be reassuring. According to the information he has, the Iowa City Police Department told the women working in the Animal Shelter that if they ever had to go to their car at night, they should call for police escort. Slockett said supposedly the area around the Administration Building is an area of high incidence of violent crime against women. Stutsman asked Pulkrabek if that is true. Pulkrabek said he has never heard that before and he would be very surprised if it were true. Lyness said there was an incident that occurred at City Carton several years ago. Slockett said people are still concerned about safety so it would be good to get those facts out if it is not true. Lyness said that the area around the Administration Building is not a high crime area.
Neuzil said the Parking Committee is still meeting and parking access and fees are still being considered. He said the parking ramp is not open to the public, but is open to employees. Sullivan said there is some public parking in the bottom of the ramp before reaching the gate. Kriz said many people are adverse when it comes to parking in any kind of a ramp and he said he believes there will be sufficient parking in between the Health and Human Services Building and the parking ramp. Kriz said County vehicles will be sheltered on the lower level of the ramp. Lyness asked where County employees such as herself and Pulkrabek should park when they come to the Administration Building for business. Sullivan said they should park in the public area for now. He said there will be a considerable amount of handicapped parking in front of the Health and Human Services building. Sullivan said these handicapped spaces have not yet been marked because the weather has not been suitable for painting or putting up the signage. Pulkrabek asked if additional handicapped spaces will be added to the Administration Building lot. Sullivan said that is under review. Kriz said four were calculated for the Administration Building and that seems to be adequate. Lyness said the formula is in the Iowa Code.
Harney said the back part of the Armory lot where the Guard vehicles used to be stored is all undermined from the floods. He said that ground is not usable until the building demolition is complete and the ground is cleaned and filled in. Neuzil said there will probably be times where employees can't park in the Armory lot when the building is being razed. Neuzil said that the Space Needs Committee needs to give some thought as to how to use the Armory lot.
Neuzil said the Board has been interested in budgeting side of a strategic plan. He said the March 24, 2009 issue of the Cedar Rapids Gazette presents a good picture of what's happening at the legislative level and with Linn County and their MH/DS Department. Neuzil said the County has from now until about August, 2009 to consider budgeting strategies. He said once the Board has hired the new Executive Assistant, that will help them refocus on the next year's budget.
Slockett asked how the Executive Assistant hiring process is coming along. Stutsman said the Board finished second round interviews on March 23, 2009 and has made a decision on who to hire. She said references are being checked and the Board hopes to make an offer by the end of this week. Pulkrabek asked if the Board is conducting a criminal background check. Stutsman said she doesn't think the Board has done that in the past. Pulkrabek offered the Sheriff's services to conduct background checks if the Board requested. The Board asked Pulkrabek to talk to Human Resources Coordinator Lora Shramek. Slockett said he would imagine Shramek is doing background checks. Lyness said that if the candidate is from Iowa their information can be looked up at www.iowacourtsonline.com.
Neuzil said the Board has been discussing having a policy in place in case the budget gets tight. He said they have discussed what to do with an open position when an employee retires. Neuzil said the Board is giving thought to asking departments not to rehire until the Board has a chance to review hiring needs within all departments. Neuzil said a new hire may be more necessary in another department and the Board would like the option of discussing that with department heads. He said the Board has not had conversations beyond just raising this as something to think about. Neuzil said if they all decide that there is a high priority for a new employee within a department, and there is a retirement within another department, should they replace the retirement in the same department or should they evaluate the situation and give a position to a department with a greater need. Neuzil said it is something to think about.
Painter said there are a lot of variables associated with whether to fill a vacant position in her office. She said the Recorder's Office had a retirement in June, 2008 and originally she decided not to rehire. Painter said their workload is steadily increasing now that interest rates are dropping. She said now she is trying to determine whether to fill that spot in order to manage the workload. The workload might not continue to accelerate, but they just don't know at this point. Sullivan said he has heard Kriz talk about the value someday of having a couple of employees cross-trained to work in any office within the County. He said all departments have seasonal spurts of activity and it might make sense to do this. Painter agreed and said that everyone could probably utilize someone with a basic working knowledge of how the different departments function. Slockett said that he could always use help at election time. Sullivan said there would be a lot of difficulties in creating that type of position and training for it, but it is worth looking into. Pulkrabek said that at a minimum Sheriff Office dispatchers need six months of training. Stutsman said cross-training would be with clerical positions. Painter said that there are service areas that are highly specialized but they would all have some capacity to utilize somebody that would have a basic working knowledge of how the different departments function. Slockett said the Auditor's Office uses a large number of temporary employees that have to be trained, and it is a big job. Neuzil said that Information Services might have a lot of document management work that a person could stay busy with.
Neuzil asked how the elected officials think the budget process went. He said that it is pretty easy when the Board has told everyone to hold the line on spending. Neuzil said he thinks the Auditor's Office and the Board's Office worked really well together. He said reviving the Finance Committee has been a positive step. He said all elected officials except for Sheriff and Attorney are on it. Painter said the mechanics of the budget process worked well. Neuzil said the only area they discussed tightening is budget amendments.
Slockett said the current budgeting process makes employees in the Auditor's Office a little uncomfortable. He said they are not involved in most of the budgeting process and yet they are asked to review budget documents. This requires knowledge of everything that went into the formation of the document which the staff does not have. He said that when errors are found, if corrections are not made, it usually takes several rounds to get done, which causes nervousness.
Slockett said one of his big concerns is the way the budget is characterized. Stutsman asked Slockett what he meant when he talked about the Auditor's Office being involved. Slockett said Deputy Auditors Chris Edwards and Dana Aschenbrenner are often asked to check the accuracy of reports. Stutsman asked how the Auditor's Office should be involved. Slockett said the budget used to be done in the Auditor's Office and some of his current staff used to be involved in that way. He commented that it was more satisfying to be involved on a day to day basis because they knew what was happening and could make corrections along the way.
Meyers said when the Board hires the new Executive Assistant things will run a little bit differently. Stutsman said that is why they need to be aware of what would be a good way to do the budget. Neuzil said in the past, the Budget Coordinator and Executive Assistant would sit with the department head to go over the budget and Neuzil does not have a problem if someone from the Auditor's Office wants to be a part of that meeting too. Slockett said they don't really have time for that. Neuzil asked what the Board should do then. Stutsman asked if Auditor's Office staff should be sitting in the Board room when the Board reviews the budgets because a lot of decisions are made in the budget meetings. Meyers said that would take even more time. Slockett agreed saying it might not be productive time but it might be something that they're going to have to get used to.
Slockett said that the Board's press release regarding the FY10 budget raised a lot of questions in the Auditor's Office. He read the line "Supervisor's propose decrease in FY10 Budget". He said this information is right from the Board of Supervisor's department on the County website. On page 10 of the budget worksheet, under the tax askings and levies for FY09, the countywide total is in the middle. In FY09, taxes were $36.6 million and this year, FY10, they were $38.7 million. Slockett said this represents a $2.1 million increase, which was characterized as a decrease in the budget. The County expenditures total for FY10 that was published is $84,077,044 and that is represented as a $118,000 decrease and a 0% increase. The expenditure amount is from the amended budget, which represents the increase over a number of months, and no taxes are set during the amendment. He said that the last certified budget published before the budget a year ago was $75,860,064 . There was an $8 million increase in expenditures and a $2.1 million increase in property taxes, and people's taxes will go up. Slockett said representing that as a decrease in the budget leads to situations like what happened during the budget hearing where a gentleman asked what happened last year. The gentleman had read in the paper that taxes were going down, so he didn't bother going to the budget hearing, but when he received his tax bill they had gone way up. Slockett said the County taxes are only a portion of that, but it is a part of the increase. He stated it is better to be very careful not to misrepresent the budget.
Neuzil said comparing the existing FY09 Budget to the FY10 Budget, there is an $118,000 decrease. He asked if this was true. Slockett said that is what the Board amended the budget to, and during the amendment process taxes do not increase in any way. Neuzil asked Slockett if the difference between the existing FY09 Budget and the current FY10 is an $118,000 decrease. Slockett said yes, but taxpayers are interested in how the taxes are going to be increased. He said if the public reads there is going to be a decrease in the budget, and the property taxes go up $2.1 million and expenditures went up $8 million, and the public is given the impression this is a decrease in the budget, he thinks its better not to give that misimpression. Slockett said he thinks it is better to state the hard facts at the budget hearing and the Board can always say it is up over the certified budget but they have had to amend it. The Board can tell the public that now it is actually down from the final amount last year and this approach is a little different. In his opinion, characterizing the budget as a decrease is not accurate. Neuzil said he agrees to disagree.
Meyers said the Board had the discussion last year noting that even when property taxes go up, that is not necessarily a result of the Board's actions, but could be the School District, or the Joint Emergency Communication Center (JECC.) He said in 2008, they discussed sending a letter along with the property tax bill to explain the taxes. Meyers suggested the Board consider this again in 2009. Slockett said the JECC is part of the Board's budget. He said the Board signed a 28E Agreement agreeing to set the taxes at whatever the committee decides them to be. Meyers said that the Board does not have any say in what that number is. Slockett said no, but the Board has agreed to pay those taxes and it is the Board's decision whether to pay them. He said the Board has the authority to set and pay those taxes. He reminded the Board that it signed a 28E Agreement which could be changed by any Board of Supervisors. Meyers said by that train of thought, the implication is that it was the five Supervisors who determined what that number was going to be, and that is not the case. Slockett said no, but the Board is responsible for it because the Board agreed to pay that number.
Harney said the Board is responsible for Conservation as well. He said that Conservation is asking for $1 million this year and could ask for $5 million next year. Slockett said the Board does not have to pay it. Harney said yes they do, because voters agreed to it. Slockett said yes, but the Board does not have to pay it. Harney said the Board is bound by the voters' decision. Slockett said the Board can set the amount that Conservation raises, and then they have to allocate it, but they can spend it any way they want. He said the Board has a lot of authority relative to taxes. Harney asked if Slockett is saying they can leave it at $1 million for 20 years and they can't ask for $4 or $5 million in between. Slockett asked if Harney was referring to the actual Conservation budget. Stutsman said no, the bond issue. Slockett said no, the bond issue has been approved by the people. In terms of the Conservation Levy itself, Conservation is not a levying authority so they present the information and the Board makes the decision. Slockett said he is not recommending that the Board not follow Conservation's recommendation. He said the Conservation Levy is included as part of the Board's budget and it is not subtracted when the Board looks at increases.
Stutsman said the Health and Human Services Building (HHSB) Open House is scheduled for April 18, 2009, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. She said department heads will conduct informal tours and there will be a short program and a ribbon cutting at 1:15 p.m. Stutsman said a number of dignitaries have been invited including Governor Chet Culver, who is unable to attend. Stutsman said the Board will emphasize that the HHSB is a LEED Certified building, in conjunction with Earth Day on April 22, 2009. She said light refreshments will be served. Harney said Chamber Ambassadors will also attend. Pulkrabek asked if the Board will also emphasize how quickly and efficiently the Board has paid for the building. Stutsman said yes. Stutsman said a brochure will be available with a floor plan of the building and information about the departments in the building, who they serve, and what they do.
Stutsman said Neuzil will be the emcee. Harney said someone will be available in each department to give tours of their own office area. Neuzil asked where to get the names of people to invite. Stutsman said the list is on the shared drive and she asked elected officials to open the list and add names to the list. Stutsman said that most people will get an email invitation although there will be a few select people who will receive postcards. She said that all the City Council members from all of Johnson County and other elected officials are all included. Stutsman said the open house will be advertised in the Chamber of Commerce Newsletter and ISAC will send out an Auditor's email through ISAC. Deputy Auditor Casie Kadlec asked if the Board will prepare an agenda for the open house. Neuzil said yes.
Stutsman said the County Fair is scheduled July 27 - 31, 2009. The Board will staff a County booth again this year and will have the bean toss which is popular with kids. Stutsman said this year's theme is "Memories Made at the Fair". She said on Kids' Day, July 28, 2009, digital cameras will be available for people to take pictures of kids and their families to print on the spot. The pictures will also be made available on the County's webpage.
Stutsman said there are still a number of things to talk through with elected officials and department heads regarding employee identification badges. One consideration is whether to include full names or just first names on the ID badges. Stutsman said Kempf will bring the badge machine to the next Department Head meeting to demonstrate what the badges look like so they will have a better idea of how they want the badges set up. She said with the current environment it is very important that the County seriously consider the ID badges. Lyness asked if key swipe cards will be combined with the badges. Stutsman said yes. She said that the badges will also have pictures. Stutsman said they will let elected officials know at the next Department Head meeting if Kempf is going to have the badge demonstration.
Slockett said that regarding a different type of ID, some questions are coming up because the DOT-issued County employee identification badges are expiring. Many County employees have these IDs. Painter said the badges will take the place of the IDs, according to Kempf. Stutsman said people would not need to renew the IDs issued through the DOT. Slockett said the IDs look a lot like a driver's license. He reported the authorizing person is the department head, or the elected official, and they select the expiration date. If no expiration date is filled in, the DOT default is four years. The maximum length of time the ID can be valid is five years so the authorizing person can put five years or anything less than that. The date can be identified by either putting the number of years in the expiration date section or by indicating an actual date. A nine digit ID number is required and it is recommended that people use their driver's license number. Slockett stated that if a person does not have a driver's license, any other nine digit number can be used but it is highly recommended not to use a social security number because it actually appears on the ID. The authorizing person is responsible for redeeming the badge if the person leaves employment. The ID cost is $1.00 and most employees are willing to pay that. People just have to take their ID to the DOT to get this license. Slockett said he knows there have been a number of requests lately about expired IDs.
Kriz said the Treasurer's Office has traditionally kept track of the DOT IDs and normally, they are issued for four years. Slockett asked Kriz what he meant when he said the Treasurer's Office keeps track of the IDs. Kriz replied they keep track of who has them and when they expire. Slockett asked how they find out when they expire. Kriz answered that the expiration date is on the form. Slockett asked how the Treasurer's Office gets the forms. Kriz said the forms are filed in his office. Stutsman asked if the signature of authorizing person refers to Kriz or the DOT person. Kriz explained that initially the Board had the Treasurer's Office signing because there were not that many requests. There are probably not even 25 IDs currently. The DOT has to sign off, too. Slockett said he thinks the badges came into use before Kriz was Treasurer and department heads were the authorizing persons. Kriz said that Human Resources just send them over to his office. Sullivan said the new badges will need to be set up to capture information because they will be used as a key card. He said that Kempf doesn't want people to have to carry two cards.
Slockett asked if an expiration date will appear on the keys. He said that is an issue for voter identification purposes. If there is not an expiration date it is not a valid ID for Election Day Registration (EDR) purposes. Either the identification document must show a current expiration date or it has to state that there is no expiration. He explained the only case of no expiration that he is aware of is for elderly people who do not have a license. He thinks there should be an expiration date for employees' cards because they might leave employment. Stutsman said elected officials' terms are for four years so maybe that is what it should be for everyone. Meyers said that there is also a mechanism available that if someone should leave employment, the card can be deactivated. Slockett said that it would be helpful if people could use it as an ID somewhere else, such as for voting. If there is no expiration date on the card it won't be considered valid ID for EDR. He stated that University of Iowa IDs don't have an expiration date and therefore don't work as an official ID for EDR. Stutsman said that is something the Board can talk about. Sullivan asked if the County is creating the IDs so that people can use them for other purposes or just for County employment purposes. Sullivan said he would hate the idea of having to renew 520 employee IDs every four years if they don't need to. Stutsman said that the Board will have to talk about these issues.
Painter said County Government Week is May 3-9, 2009. She said this year's theme determined by the National Association of Counties (NACo) is "Greening Our Future." Painter said the theme dovetails nicely with the new Health and Human Services Building. She said they will try to highlight some of the building's features because it is one of the best examples of a LEED Certification building of that size in Eastern Iowa, and perhaps the state. Painter said the NACo site has banners, logos, brochures, and press releases available. Neuzil said the Board will likely adopt a Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Sustainability Plan (GGRSP.) He said a discussion on this topic is scheduled for the Key Issues meeting following the Elected Officials meeting. Painter said there is a small subcommittee forming to begin planning. Neuzil said that he will ask Assistant Planner Josh Busard to visit with Painter about the GGRSP.
Slockett said as elected officials they get questions about the flood and abating taxes. He cited a March 17, 2009 Cedar Rapids Gazette article which he distributed to elected officials and Board members earlier. The dilemma, Slockett said, is summed up in the article. Obviously the County wants to have the revenues necessary to operate the County and the County does not want to interfere with the ability of the City and the School District to do the same. Slockett quoted Cedar Rapids City Council Member Chuck Wieneke from the March 17, 2009 article, "Mother Nature victimized people and I don't believe they should be victimized a second time. I personally believe that's wrong." Slockett said what Wieneke is talking about is not charging people for taxes on property that may no longer exist or is substantially altered or damaged. He said the Board does have the authority to do something about not charging property taxes in this situation if the Board chooses. The Iowa Code Section 445.62 gives the Board the authority to abate or refund in full or in part the taxes of any person whose building, crops, or other property has been destroyed by fire, tornado, or other unavoidable casualties if that property has not been sold for taxes or if the taxes have not been delinquent for 30 days at the time of destruction. He said this is a tough question and it is not clear what needs to be done, but he wanted to make sure the Board is aware of the Code. Slockett asked the Board if they have talked about it and what they are planning to do. He said it sounds like Cedar Rapids is currently deciding.
Harney said the Board had an in-depth discussion about this in a Board meeting right after the floods and the Board decided not to abate or refund taxes. Meyers said at that time, he was under the impression the Board was not allowed to abate or refund taxes. Kriz said the discussion the Board had was that the authority is there but the discussion led to the City of Coralville, the City of Iowa City, and the Iowa City Community School Districts, all saying they would absolutely not want the Board to abate or refund taxes. Harney said the impact it would have on the budgets and operations of the City of Coralville, Iowa City, and the School District would be significant. Sullivan said another important consideration was that County Assessor Bill Greazel said that after the 1993 flood, the majority of properties received a higher post-flood valuation in 1994.
Slockett said that Greazel said he is going to lower taxes for the following year so the question is whether the Board wants to do the same. Stutsman said the Board has set the budget and asked how they would make this up. Sullivan said he feels like this is done. He said that the Board reviewed this in September and October of 2008. Stutsman said that the Board reviewed this before the budget process, so they knew what they had to work with. Neuzil said obviously it will come up again, because Cedar Rapids/Linn County is reviewing it. Meyers said the situation in Cedar Rapids is exponentially worse than in Johnson County. Stutsman said Johnson County does not have any commercial properties that were damaged in the unincorporated area.
Slockett said he was appalled at the lack of progress in dealing with Katrina. Johnson County kind of has its own Katrina and he asked what the County is doing to help people. Slockett asked if anyone is aware of any study to show what the property tax revenue from the damaged property is and how significant that would be. He asked if Joint Emergency Communications Executive Director Mike Sullivan could take a look at what the cost would be. Stutsman said historically the Board has not abated taxes for any of these reasons. She said the Board decided there were other ways to lighten the financial burden for victims, such as paying for flood clean up of homes in the unincorporated area. Sullivan said the Board gave financial support to the Chamber of Commerce efforts and to United Way. He said the County gave about $300,000 toward flood relief. Sullivan said the Board felt like by supporting the flood disaster recovery on the expenditure rather than the revenue side, the money could be directed to where it was most needed. Sullivan said the Chamber of Commerce and United Way used criteria to choose people who were in the greatest need.
Stutsman said the Board did have a lengthy discussion about this before the budget and if they were going to discuss this again, they should have done it before the budget was approved. Stutsman asked where they would make up the money at this point. Neuzil said that the City of Coralville, the City of Iowa City, and the Iowa City Community School Districts sent letters asking the County not to abate taxes. Painter said the Board has also taken steps to address the problem using a different method. She said the potential local option sales tax revenue has been designated for property tax relief and will substantially help some people. Slockett said that is not what was put in the ballot issue though. He said that the local option tax would be used to reduce the Rural Levy and for Secondary Roads. Meyers said it doesn't specifically target flood damage.
Slockett reported that Linn County voted in March 2009 on the Local Option Sales and Services Tax (LOSST) and it passed in 10 jurisdictions and failed in five jurisdictions. According to a pattern that has happened all over the state, the jurisdictions where it didn't pass figured out they would be paying the tax anyway in retail outlets, but they wouldn't reap the benefits. The issue is back on the ballot in May, 2009 in the jurisdictions where it failed. Slockett said he wants to make sure that the word is out there on how that works. The Department of Revenue is really reluctant to give information about projections, because it is not known if this measure will pass and in what jurisdictions. The financial crisis has made it impossible to predict retail sales, which makes the Department of Revenue staff nervous. He said these numbers are based on assumptions that revenues would be the same as last year, 95% distribution was $17,305,853 for the entire County. Slockett said if the LOSST passed in every jurisdiction, Iowa City would receive about $9.2 million, and the unincorporated areas would receive about $3.9 million. The distribution formula takes all the sales tax funds collected countywide and gives a 25% weight according to property tax levies in the last three years. Slockett explained the Department of Revenue determines that information from files they have and 75% weight goes to the population. When a jurisdiction does not pass the tax measure, they don't charge taxes, but they don't receive any either.
Slockett presented an example of the situation where Coralville passes the measure and Iowa City does not pass it. In that case, the County distribution would be 47%, so they would still get $3.7 million, almost as much whether Iowa City passed it or not. The reason for that is that Iowa City doesn't pay any in, but Iowa City gets about the same amount as they pay in, in the formula. If the measure passes everywhere, Iowa City pays in about $9 million and receives $9 million and it is more or less a wash if they don't pass it.
Slockett said though nobody knows for sure what will happen in an election, he feels Coralville will pass the tax. He said Coralville has figured out how to leverage money they pay and collect from the rest of the county in TIFs, to their advantage. This has been tested in elections and Coralville has voted overwhelming to continue with the people who are making those decisions. The residents of Coralville will look at the sales tax and realize they are not paying most of it. He said that there are visitors to the area that are sharing the pay, such as places like Coral Ridge Mall. Coralville will see this as a way of leveraging their resources, so he thinks it will pass. Slockett added that some people think it won't pass in Iowa City, but he reminded people that in 2007, the LOSST passed two to one everywhere in the county when it was for the schools. It failed in 1987 due to the contiguous city requirement, a requirement that all cities whose boundaries touch each other vote as one unit. He said that it failed in the contiguous cities but actually passed in Iowa City in 1987. Slockett thinks it is entirely possible it will pass in Iowa City too. If this measure fails in the rural areas but passes in Iowa City and Coralville, then the rural people will be making the majority of their purchases in the retail outlets and paying the tax, but the County won't receive any revenues. He said this happens all over the state, people don't understand this so it takes several elections before everyone gets aboard the tax.
Slockett said he thinks it is in the public's best interest to vote in favor of the tax. He explained that if people go to retail outlets in Davenport, Clinton, Dubuque, Cedar Rapids, Cedar Falls, Waterloo, Sioux City, Ames, and Mason City, they are already going to be paying the tax. After May, people will probably be paying the tax in Coralville and Iowa City and when people figure out how this works, they are going to want to do it. Slockett said this is a time when leadership would be useful and he would like the Elected Officials Committee and the Board of Supervisors to endorse the sales tax. The uses for Iowa City and Coralville are for flood relief. The recent rainy weather has put City Park and Rocky Shore Park under water again. Slockett reminded people that flooding can happen again any time and he asked how the community would feel if nothing was done and there was no change in procedures. It would be a service to the public to understand how this works. He said he voted against the sales tax in 1987 and in 1999. Senate File 44 decouples cities from the contiguous city group. It makes sense, if the tax can be prevented from going into effect in the majority of the retail areas in the County, but that can't be done anymore. Slockett said since then the sales tax has passed almost everywhere else.
Stutsman said Johnson County is the only county that does not have a sales and service tax. Slockett agreed and said that Johnson County is the only County that doesn't have it in any jurisdiction in the County. Meyers asked Lyness if there are any guidelines for elected officials concerning what they can or cannot advocate for. Lyness said the Board of Supervisors is not supposed to advocate. Lyness said that in a supervisor's individual capacity, they may do whatever they want, but as a Board, they cannot advocate. Slockett said he wished he had spoken with Lyness earlier, because that is just not correct. He said he spoke with Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Executive Director and Legal Counsel W. Charles Smithson, and elected officials and boards can pass measures in favor of this and they can even say "vote yes" in their measure. Slockett said that he has specifically checked into this. Lyness said she will take a look at it, but her reading of the Code is that Supervisor's can do whatever they want individually but as a Board, they shouldn't be advocating. Sullivan said the bigger question is if the Board wants to advocate for the tax. Lyness said education is a different thing. Sullivan said the Board hasn't ever done this in the past, so the question is why they would do it now. He asked if the Board even wants to pursue this. Sullivan said they have never done this in the past, so why now.
Meyers said the County Attorney's guidelines for the Supervisors regarding the Conservation Bond were quite similar to what she is saying now. He said that Lyness informed the Board that they were not to support or oppose the Conservation Bond. He said at the informational meetings there was a fine line between whether they conducted information dissemination or advocacy. Meyers said Conservation Director Harry Graves was called on it by someone that he was out advocating. Meyers said it was a debatable situation, but it did come up. Neuzil said that the Board received an email from the League of Women Voters asking the Board for a spokesperson to sit on a panel to discuss the issue. Meyers said that Solon will be having a panel discussion this week.
Sullivan said he got the impression that the Supervisors are not of one mind on the tax measure. Stutsman agreed and said if she is going to endorse something, it would have to be a unanimous Board vote. Slockett said this is the Elected Officials' Meeting, not only the Board. Harney said he thinks the chart Slockett presented should be sent to the newspapers for publication. He said there is a huge misunderstanding within the county. Harney said he has received calls from people asking him why the County is supporting a sales tax. He said residents don't understand that they are actually getting more in return than they are putting into it. Sullivan said there is a tendency to be condescending when they are on the losing end of an election. He said that he has heard from people in Marion who have asked why people are so sure that Marion would want to vote again.
Slockett said he researched this thoroughly and city councils and boards of supervisors can pass flat out endorsements, including asking people to vote yes, as an official action. They cannot use County funds to distribute the information, but they can engage in education using County funds. He said that another group, such as a group in support of the tax, could use their funds to disseminate an endorsement from the Board or other governmental bodies. He said as individuals, county officials and city council members can oppose or advocate, using their name and official position. Slockett said this information was unambiguously stated to him by Smithson. Neuzil asked if the Board has any desire to pursue having the Board endorse the tax at all. Stutsman, Sullivan, and Meyers said no.
Pulkrabek said he is not clear who the Rural Levy affects. He said he thinks it would be helpful for citizens to understand who pays the Rural Levy, is it just Ag land owners or is it any resident. Stutsman said any resident in the unincorporated area. Sullivan said any resident who owns any unincorporated property. Pulkrabek said that is the simple explanation, even though the wording says Rural Levy, this affects anyone who owns property in an unincorporated area. Harney said it doesn't make any difference if it is a house or Ag land. Pulkrabek said he will support it, because he supports his property taxes decreasing. Sullivan asked the other elected officials at the meeting if they were interested in pursuing this. Kriz and Lyness said no. Stutsman thanked Slockett for presenting the information.
Lyness said she thinks there are different code sections on bond issues verses local option sales tax. She said she may be a little conservative in her recommendation to the Board in order to protect them. Stutsman said that Lyness does have to defend the Board, if it is challenged. Painter said she feels a definite responsibility to explain to the public how the tax works, because it is confusing. She said that however one feels about the tax, a significant amount of money is lost for those who do not participate. Painter said if people don't think of this, they may vote against it in the unincorporated areas where it could actually be to their benefit to vote for it. Beyond that, Painter said, she is conflicted about the tax and feels like it is a set up.
The elected officials discussed possible dates for the next meeting and scheduled the next Elected Officials meeting for June 29, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
Deborah Thornton said she is informally representing the Ax the Tax group, which is opposed to the sales tax increase. She thanked the group for deciding to not take an official position on this tax. She said that they would encourage people to vote their conscience. Thornton said the agenda for today's meeting was posted at 5:04 a.m. Neuzil disagreed and said the agenda was posted yesterday. Thornton said she didn't receive it by email until 5:00 a.m. and it was difficult to notify people interested in attending the meeting with such short notice. Deputy Auditor Casie Kadlec said it was posted on the County website around 10:30 a.m. March 23, 2009. She said that it isn't a legal requirement to be posted on the web 24 hours in advance, but the Auditor's Office does their best to make sure this happens. Kadlec said that the emailed agendas are sent by Information Services and she doesn't know how that system is set up. Kadlec said the legal requirement is that the agenda be posted in the building 24 hours in advance of a meeting, which it was.
Thornton thanked Lyness for being aware of the issue of advocacy versus education. She agreed with Meyers that Graves stepped over the line from education to advocacy during the Conservation Bond process, which Thornton said is illegal. She said they would not want to see that happen in this election. Thornton said sales taxes in Iowa have continuously increased and as a result many people are coming to Johnson County to make major purchases because the sales tax is slightly lower. She said she has heard many anecdotal stories from people from Mt. Pleasant, Fairfield, and many other areas currently running a 7% sales tax, who are coming to shop in Johnson County.
Thornton said she wants people to be aware of the SILO takeover. She said that Johnson and Linn Counties were the last two counties to pass the SILO School Infrastructure Sales Tax and it was only passed after the counties were bribed, because they were exempted from sharing the money for five of the 10 years that it was voted for. Thornton said that no sooner than that tax was passed statewide, the legislature took it over making it a permanent statewide SILO tax for 25 years. Thornton said that after a sales tax is in place for 25 years, it is pretty permanent. Thornton said she does not want to see this same sort of thing happen in this scenario.
Thornton said she has a real problem with voting and re-voting and will be discussing it more publicly. She said that if the elected officials do not get the result they want, that they continue to call for re-votes. She said this is happening all over the state, particularly in school districts and school district bond elections. Thornton said this is an insult to the voters. Citing the revote in Linn County as an example, she maintained that the people in Marion don’t want to pay the tax, want to shop in Marion, want the reduction and knew exactly what they were doing.Thornton said if this tax fails in any or all jurisdictions in Johnson County, she hopes there will not be a re-vote.
Meyers said that at one point Thornton had a timeliness issue about publishing of agendas and minutes. Meyers said that he wanted to clarify that the publishing of agendas and minutes is an Auditor's Office function. Kadlec said that publication of minutes, not agendas, is an Auditor's Office function. Kadlec said that agendas are produced by the Board Office, and the Auditor's Office posts them on the web. Thornton said that she would like all minutes to be approved within a week to 10 days from when the meeting is held. Thornton said that people who work cannot get to every meeting and do rely on the published minutes to stay apprised about what is going on.
Adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2009
By: Casie Kadlec, Deputy Auditor
Sent to the Elected officials on June 24, 2009.