MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARCH 26, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocation....................................................................................................................................... 1
County Engineer Greg Parker and Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: Chip Seal/Dust Alleviation Policy............................................................................................................................. 3
County Engineer Greg Parker and Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: Dust Alleviation Permit and Letter for Johnson County Private Residents.................................................................. 8
County Engineer Greg Parker: Federal Highway Stimulus Program Project Aid Agreement With the Iowa Department of Transportation for Project ESL-CO52(094)—7S-52, Dubuque Street Trail – West Overlook Road to 275th Street................................................................................................................ 9
County Engineer Greg Parker: Condition of Roads and Future Weather Concerns............... 9
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Grant Funding for FY10-12............................................................................................ 9
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: Creating a Charitable Giving Fund With the Community Foundation of Johnson County for the Children’s Initiative................................................................ 17
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: Focus on Youth Fund Contract........................ 18
Medical Examiner Michael Hensch: Quarterly Report........................................................ 18
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: Non-Bargaining Classification and Compensation Study Agreement With PJ Greufe & Associates...................................................................... 20
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors......................................................... 20
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:23 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson said he began working on the Community Development Disaster Block Grant and asked the Board for input on how to allocate the funds. He said originally Johnson County was allocated $2,000. This amount was reformulated based on claims for public assistance and individual assistance. That made their eligible award increase to $49,910.67. He said after speaking with select members of the Board, there seems to be an interest in a couple of projects that are not normally allowed with grants. One example he cited is the desire to purchase tornado sirens. There are a couple of areas in which the County would be well-served to place tornado sirens, one being at Kent Park. Wilson explained that the siren at this location is old and said he has received a few quotes for the cost of a replacement siren. The largest available siren from Fesslers, Inc. would be solar powered. Another location under consideration is in the Williamstown/Frytown area. These two sirens would cover the southern and western edge of the County. The cost for replacing both of these sirens would equal a little over $40,000.
Wilson said the other project would involve supporting the Volunteer Coordination Center, run by the United Way. He said that is an eligible grant beneficiary and they served the County well during the floods in the coordination of volunteers. The Johnson County Volunteer Coordination Center would get approximately $8,000 from this grant if the Board approves the request. He said they have been a good community partner for matching resources with needs. These are the ways he has prepared the disaster grant funding right now and said he would like some formal direction from the Board before moving forward. He noted that this must be finalized by the close of business on April 1, 2009 and requires the signature of the Chair of the Board of Supervisors.
Meyers noted there was some suggestion about a large trailer-mounted generator and asked what happened to that. Wilson said after comparing the cost of the trailer-mounted generator which was approximately $25,000 and the cost of the tornado sirens, it turned into an issue of prioritization. They would get more appropriate use out of the two tornado sirens because the Williamstown/Frytown area is currently unprotected and most storms come in from that direction. Meyers said it is surprising to see the price tag on the sirens. Wilson agreed and said he thought they would cost between $12,000 and $14,000. R. Sullivan noted that the Executive Board was at a meeting in Frytown when a tornado was coming and there was no siren. Wilson said this would cover about 6,000 feet and encompasses all of the Williamstown/Frytown area as well as into the rural area. As grant funds free up it would be logical to look at other unincorporated areas. Harney asked if they have any unincorporated communities that do not have coverage at this time. Wilson noted that there are several, including Morse and Cosgrove. He stated that he was trying to place tornado sirens in the areas where storms traditionally enter the County which is from the south and west. Because of this, Frytown seemed logical. He said he chose Kent Park because of the level of activity and population during the hazard months. He said he is not sure what Conservation Director Harry Graves plans to do with the old siren, and added that there has been some discussion of moving it to another County Conservation location such as Hills Access.
Stutsman stated that Hills Access can hear the Hills siren and River Junction might be a better location. Wilson agreed that River Junction is a potential location. He said Hills and Tiffin have some siren challenges. Sullivan said while he was at a meeting in Sutliff it was noted that they do not hear the sirens in that area. Wilson said there are six or eight good places to add sirens, if grant funding becomes available.
Stutsman said Wilson’s plan makes sense and it is a good start but they need to be aware there are other places they need to look at. Meyers said he is not sure about the actual village of Morse but in some of those areas the Iowa City or Solon sirens can be heard. Wilson said he has not been in that area when they have tested the sirens. Stutsman said River Junction has been hit by tornados before so they might be next on the list.
R. Sullivan asked if the siren would be located on County property. Wilson said the plan would be to put it up next to the County Roads Building. They are solar powered so they do not have to worry about electricity or monthly bills. Meyers asked if these are in a system where they hit a switch and they all go off. Wilson said currently they have an all or nothing system. When they move into the Joint Emergency Communications Center they are going to have the ability to alert quadrants of the County, the metro area, individual cities, or the whole County.
Harney asked if the one at Kent Park will cover lower Highway 6 and the Tiffin area. Wilson said yes and provided a diagram showing the present placement of Graves’ siren. He said it almost covers the trailer park. If they move it to a different road on Graves’ site it would encompass the whole trailer park because right now they are not covered by the Oxford sirens. He is going to see if they can move it more south and west so they cover the trailer park. Stutsman said she is glad some of the money is going to the Johnson County Volunteer Coordination Center. The United Way did step up to the plate with the floods to organize volunteers. Wilson agreed and said when they are able to fund or refine that process a little more it will run even smoother. R. Sullivan said the people running the Volunteer Coordination Center said they have over 500 people coming this summer so they are going to need the additional funding.
Wilson said some of the other communities were allocated smaller amounts, somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000 so they will not be able to do large things. Most of those towns are going to get a small generator that would cover essential functions such as University Heights or Oxford City Hall. The County is helping them with some of those requests. Meyers said it seems odd that it is difficult to find a funding source for that kind of a thing. Wilson agreed and said the things that are most important for Emergency Management are back up power generation and outdoor warning systems yet they are the last thing to get funded. This grant allows for these things so they should take advantage of this opportunity.
County Engineer Greg Parker said they are at a point where they are comfortable with the Chip Seal Policy. He asked the Board if they had questions they wanted to discuss. Neuzil said it would be important to recap what they are doing and why. Parker said in 1998 or 1999 the County stopped all future seal coating on roads. About two years ago discussion was held that they should consider allowing residents to do private chip seal on County roads. This would more than likely be on gravel roads. Since that time they have been putting a policy together with Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak and his staff, Secondary Roads staff, two Board of Supervisor members, and Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell.
Parker said they are considering this as a dust alleviation option on top of what would be available to residents that would want to pay for private application of calcium chloride, lignin sulfonate, magnesium chloride, soybean oil or other options approved for dust control on County roads. Besides paving this is the next more expensive option. Some of the requirements are that the resident put a minimum of 500 feet down and typically the County would like to see that split at the applicant’s driveway or access point location. The applicants request will have to be reviewed to make sure it meets the County’s needs. He said they have to look at the traveling public and safety of everyone driving on those roads.
Parker said they want to make sure they are not creating a hazard by changing the surface. If this is a location that is on a curve or close to an intersection they may request that the 500 feet be extended to cover safety issues. This is how the process would proceed for those who have never had seal coat before. The following year, if anyone decided they wanted to keep their seal coat operation activity and continue that yearly, Secondary Roads Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Hackathorn will evaluate all the private chip seals. A letter will be sent to the applicant and if work needs to be done the applicant would fill out the permit, send it to the County approved contractor, and the contractor would send the permit and the letter back to the County to be included in the program. He said he does not know how many applicants they are going to get because it is an expensive process.
R. Sullivan said his initial concern was that the application should come to the County and then to the contractor, but he understands the contractor will not do anything until both parties have reviewed the application. Parker agreed and said ultimately the approval and review happen in his office. Because it is a private activity and is not being paid for in advance by the County, they would like the applicant to work directly with the contractor. This is how they have handled other dust alleviation programs. R. Sullivan asked what happens if an applicant goes to the contractor and indicates they want to chip seal a 500 foot stretch of road and after Hackathorn looks at it he determines based on an intersection and curve they need to cover 600 feet. If they have already called the contractor does that matter.
Parker said there will probably be a lot of questions like that because they cannot cover every angle. R. Sullivan asked how it would work with lignin sulfonate. Parker responded with that type of application they are going to send the applicant a menu with established price, and they can pick the option they want. The applicant will contact an approved contractor and fill out the permit, the contractor will send the permit to Secondary Roads, and his office will compile a list of all applications. Hackathorn will go look at those roads and review them. If it is determined 600 feet is needed, the applicant will need to contact the contractor. Parker said the applicant might not realize how much it will cost and decide to switch to calcium chloride. He wants the applicant to make that decision. The approval and review process is handled through Secondary Roads and they will work with the contractor directly on that. He said this process seems to work well for them now. Harney said he got a call from an individual asking if they do 500 feet this year and they decide to do another distance next year, can they add on without any problems. Parker said every applicant’s request is reviewed by his office. If they covered 500 feet one year and wanted to do another 250 feet the next, his office would review that as part of the application. The permit does not allow a limitation of length.
Parker said with a new policy there may be things that will come up that they did not think of. This policy will be approved as part of a resolution and if there are modifications that need to be made they will bring those to the Board for consideration. Meyers asked if this year’s lineal foot estimate is about $6.00. Parker said he does not know because they have not received bids. They will be accepting bids April 14, 2009. He met with some other county engineers and they are looking at about $6.00 a lineal foot for contracting oil. Meyers asked how that compares to the cost of the other options. Parker said each material commands a different price. Meyers asked if someone chooses the chip seal option and they have a maintainer on the gravel can the property owners expect that they will lift the blade when they go through there. Parker said yes, they would not blade through it, however, the problem is that when they come to changes in surface they are going to drag some material on there and back drag it off. That is why the 500 feet length is needed. Overtime as they blade the road the edge is going to come in. He said vehicles driving on it will break it up because they are jumping different surfaces and blades are also going to do some damage. They will plow it in the winter so that may do some damage to the edges. This process will be a time commitment for staff because they will be reviewing those permits before winter to see if the surface application will make it through the winter.
Parker said they know it is a big investment for the applicant and it would not be in the County's interest to rip it up and revert it back to gravel. However, if it is in poor condition it would be their determination to inform the applicant that the County will have to rip it because it will not make it through the winter. He restated that they do not want to create a hazard for the traveling public. Stutsman asked if people who have big frontage in front of their homes can mix the 500 feet of chip seal and a calcium chloride on each side. Parker said they have not discussed that particular application but he does not see why they would not allow it.
Parker said this will be an adjustment for the staff and he believes after the first few years they will make changes to make it a more user friendly program. Stutsman asked what Parker will be doing at Secondary Roads so the landowner does not feel they are responsible for a County owned road in front of their house. Parker said the County spends staff time reviewing applications at no cost to the applicant and there is no application fee right now. They can apply for any dust alleviation product they want. Secondary Roads staff will go out to review it, and they will work with the property owner to give the ok. The residents will have input where they want it to start and stop. County staff will prep the road by blading and adding rock so it is ready for the contractor’s application.
Parker said there is a cost involved in that because they will be adding rock to the surface. The County has an interest in making sure that whatever product is being applied to the road lasts. He said his staff will be monitoring the roads and if there are maintenance issues such as repairing pot holes or edges breaking up, if the applicant chooses seal coat they would need to get patching material and fix the issue. He said if they would not repair it then the County would convert it back to gravel. Some people say they have had seal coat for many years and wonder why the County does not take care of it. For the County, it is the cost. Right now they do not budget to cover those expenses so it is a private issue.
R. Sullivan said every year someone is not going to want to fix the road and it is important for the Board to stand behind some of the decisions Secondary Roads makes. Parker said there is an expense and a time involvement on both sides. Secondary Roads is protecting the County's interests and are asking the applicants to protect theirs which in turn will extend the life of the surface. If there is a chip seal with holes in it or they get a complaint they try to get it corrected as quickly as possible to avoid additional damage or expense.
Harney asked if a property owner puts down surface material and they sell the property does the road automatically get torn up or does Secondary Roads give the new property owner the option to continue the program. Parker said if the property is sold a letter would be sent to that address and the new property owner would have to respond back to them. If they do not respond that tells them they have no interest in maintaining the seal coat and they would more than likely rip it up. Meyers asked if they will keep a database starting immediately and notify the individuals every year. Parker said yes, that is how they do it now.
Neuzil said this is a policy that is going to change the quality of life for many people. There are a lot of residents who are willing to spend the extra dollars so they can open their windows and hang clothes on the line. He asked if the length of these changes and the potential impact on Planning and Zoning has been worked out. If they have a situation where six different residents want to do a certain amount of feet, essentially they have a road that has been changed from gravel to chip seal. Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said there is a sentence in the policy that states, with a road that is chip seal, pursuant to this policy, shall remained classified as gravel. Therefore, it does not lend itself to opening development on that road. If the Board approves this policy, the committee is not done. They will come back to the Board with more of a real chip seal policy, for development purposes. The criteria on that would be different than a dust alleviation policy.
R. Sullivan said if they start to see too many chip seal applications together they will have to talk about right-of-way dedication. Neuzil said they may find it advantageous to change it to a different level. Stutsman said she is glad there is another option for homeowners in the unincorporated areas. Dvorak said there are some gathering areas like churches and cemeteries on gravel roads that will benefit from this as well. This has become an inconvenience to people if they are not used to driving on gravel roads, especially in the winter. Stutsman asked Parker if he would come back in about six months to inform the Board about where they are on this policy.
Parker said yes and he thinks it would be of interest to report to the Board how many requests they have had and what the impact will be on Secondary Roads. When they look at individuals who are seal coating a half mile or mile then they need to have a conversation about having them assist Secondary Roads in getting the road prepped. That requires a lot of regrating activity and additional work. If they get the road prepped they do not want to tell the resident they have to reseal this area every year. There is a lot of investment involved from the applicant standpoint so they want to make sure the investment if best for both sides. Harney said this basically grew from people who were getting temporary dust control now and feel that they are spending a lot of money each year. This would give them a longer seal against the dust.
R. Sullivan said this has some potential impact on the snow policy and Chappell has suggested they look at that. Parker said it was probably better to see if the Board would approve this policy before addressing the snow ordinance. It is a little more involved and they can take the summer to work on that. Harney said he wanted to know if Chappell had other concerns they should be looking at on this. Chappell said his concerns have not changed. He understands what Parker has described and how they are going to do it but his concern is that no where in the policy or in the application process is there any indication to a property owner about what type of additional maintenance may be expected of them. He understands that those issues will be addressed in some form of dialogue but he thinks it is better to give them some idea of what may be expected of them up front.
Chappell said there is a reference in the policy that they will be required to maintain the surface, however he has never been comfortable that is enough. It is not a legal concern so much as a fairness issue. If they are going to spend the money to put down a surface and the following year be expected to take care of pot holes, they need to have some idea that it is a possible expense and what it will cost. He said he also has a concern about the 150 feet because it is not in the policy. He said Parker told him that is how they do it now with the other dust control options they have but it is not in the policy. It would make sense to put that language in the policy. The same is true with sending the applications to the applicators and then to the County. They need to make sure that people will be able to understand the process.
R. Sullivan said the problem is that the 150 feet is not County policy but it came from the contractors applying the surface material. He said it is possible they could end up in a contract with someone who says they will not come back unless it is 200 feet. That is the private business issue and not the County's. He said they should not have a specific number and leave it up to the contractor. Chappell said he understood the number was in there because Secondary Roads wanted 500 feet. R. Sullivan said he is referring to the 150 feet that is in the letter but not in the policy. Chappell said that directly contradicts the policy which states an application will be no less than 500 feet but the application says maybe the next year it will be 150 feet. He does not care what the length is but if he is reading the policy he should be able to understand what will be expected. R. Sullivan said maybe it should say an initial chip seal application. Chappell said it should say whatever the policy is going to be. Neuzil asked if the four things Chappell brought up can be resolved in the next week or two. Stutsman asked if that needed to be resolved by next week because she thought these had to go out by April 1, 2009.
Parker said last year they did not get dust control down until the end of July. If he has a strict implementation of dates it does not allow for flexibility of unknowns. The last sentence said that the implementation of this policy shall be set by the Secondary Road department the first part of every year. He put together two implementation date schedule sheets but because they are looking at the policy in this time frame, the dates may change. It will not change the fact that they will be receiving bids for seal coats. They have time because the actual chip seal application will not take place until July or August at the earliest. The first year of the implementation will be a little odd. The more they do this they will be on a more regular schedule. He said he appreciates Chappell’s comments because they want to be open and upfront with the policy. If they need to add things to the policy they can.
Harney said he likes the time frame giving the applicants a month to get it completed. Parker said looking at 2010 it will probably be more the norm. Because this is a new addition to an existing policy they will work with the residents. Stutsman said it is good to know they will not be able to do this until July or August. Parker said that gives Secondary Roads a little bit of time. The down side is that they will not have dust control until then, unless they consider allowing another application of something else in the meantime. He said he would work with Chappell on these issues. The Board agreed to add this item to a future formal agenda.
Parker said his staff is already recommending a change to the letter that will be sent to the applicants. They try to separate out the things that are related to one dust alleviation product from another instead of reading the whole letter and getting confused. The first year they may have some bumps but they will work through these to make more sense of it. They tried to cover every angle which is hard to do. Neuzil asked if this would also be on next weeks agenda. Parker said the Board could approve it. He thought of it more as information for the Board to give comment on the permit and the letter they send out. The policy would be approved by resolution. These they would handle internally and if they have issues they can modify it. Dvorak asked if there was a difference between doing this by resolution rather than Board action. Chappell said given that they have described implementation of a policy that may not be consistent every year and are describing a timeline that is different than what is in the policy he thinks they need a resolution to explain it.
Parker said this agreement is similar to all the projects they have Federal funding for. They have been approved to expend $252,000 toward the Dubuque Street Trail Project. They can receive up to 100% funding of the project but right now $252,000 is available so they would have to match the difference. If future funds become available there is a possibility they could receive funds to cover the difference of the projects. The recommendation is to put this on the formal agenda next week.
Parker talked to Hackathron about the condition of the roads and forecast possibility of snow. The seal coats are soft right now and they probably will not plow them if they get snow because the plows would do more damage. They could potentially peel that off. He just wanted to let them know why they wouldn’t see plows on the seal coats. R. Sullivan said they have several embargos that are listed on the website. They are 90 days from the point at which they are put on. Parker said that was correct. The Code allows up to a maximum of 90 days from the date that the embargo was put in place. R. Sullivan said they have put a lot on between March 10, 2009 and today. Parker said they added a couple today and they will be monitoring those roads on a daily basis to preserve the surface the best they can. They appreciate the residents' patience during this and the website is updated daily. Meyers asked if they would potentially not put the plows out on all chip seal roads or just the ones that are embargoed. Parker said that is on all seal coats.
Recessed at 10:15 a.m.; reconvened at 10:27 a.m.
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia said she sent the Board a memo with background on the agenda item. This item is presenting the recommendation from the Policy Board for the FY10 allocation. This is allocating the $200,000 available in Department 54 for a competitive grant for Juvenile Crime Prevention and the priority service areas that were set in the request for proposals that was released by the Board in November. Correia said the proposals were due on January 16, 2009 in Social Services. They received ten applications and two of them did not meet the criteria. There were eight qualified non-profits with a total request of $412,879.
Correia said the Policy Board created a process for review for recommendations. There was a review committee and the criteria was set through the Request for Proposal (RFP). Committee members include; Correia, Carrie Norton, Kristen Parks, Anne Zebrowski, and North Liberty Assistant City Administrator Tracey Mulcahey. They met in February 2009 to make recommendations that were forwarded to the Policy Board. The Policy Board met on March 4, 2009 to review the applications but there was not a quorum of members that did not have a conflict of interest. At the request of the Policy Board members and members of the public who were at the meeting, put all the applications on the County website with the recommendation memo. They received comments and correspondence that were shared with the Policy Board before the March 24, 2009 meeting.
Correia said there was further discussion and the Policy Board voted to recommend the review teams recommended allocation for FY10. They put the RFP for a three year funding cycles with two caveats. There will be a yearly evaluation to see if the applicant met the expectations of the program in terms of services provided as well as the evaluation. The other criteria for renewal will be if the Board makes those funds available in FY11. The priorities for funding were disproportionate minority contact of youth involved in the juvenile justice system, youth substance use and abuse, bullying and youth respect, and pro-social programs for youth during out of school time.
Correia said five applicants were recommended for funding through Community Corrections Improvement Association (CCIA) for the Children of Promise Mentoring Program. This program has staff located in Iowa City at the Broadway Neighborhood Center. They provide mentoring for youth ages 12 to 17 who have a parent who is incarcerated. This met the criteria of trying to reduce the juvenile crime, delinquency, and disproportionate minority contact. Correia said research has shown youth with a parent incarcerated are more likely to become involved in the criminal legal system. The award is for $9,530 and is the smallest award. It leverages the dollars they are receiving from the Iowa Department of Public Health.
Correia said when they originally started the program they were going to focus on one specific neighborhood in Iowa City. In the application they indicated they had gotten requests to expand outside of that area. The review committee recommendation was to award this funding with the caveat that they would be doing that. Correia said they shared at the Policy Board Meeting that they have expanded outside of that neighborhood. They now have youth enrolled in Coralville and North Liberty. Big Brother Big Sisters was given funding for the School Buddy Program. She said this provides mentoring for kindergarten through sixth grade during the school day. Many times students involved in this program are not candidates for the community based mentoring program.
Correia said this is a way to get children in kindergarten through sixth grade involved with mentoring. The schools providing this are around Johnson County not only Iowa City but in Oxford at Clear Creek Elementary, Van Allen, and they plan to expand to North Bend. They propose to serve at least 200 youth in this program and they were given $25,822. United Action for Youth (UAY) was given funds for prosocial programs. This is to help support the community arts program particularly looking at areas of need in community settings and making sure under served areas in Johnson County with youth programming begin to receive some of these positive youth supports.
Correia said Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County will receive $50,354 for a neighborhood youth development project. This will provide programs in the summer and after school for fifth to eighth grade. There will be academic tutoring support, skill development, and youth leadership. They have a parent component offering positive behavior support and parent education which complements what is being implemented in the schools. They will be keeping kids positively engaged.
Correia said MECCA received $88,473 for site based counseling services. This offers an expansion of the program they have been currently providing in City High School and West High School. They received funding through the school district to provide a full-time site based substance abuse counselor. This will support half-time of those positions as well as expanding to Clear Creek, Tiffin, and Solon. The Iowa Youth Survey provides data that in all these schools there are youth who are using alcohol and other drugs. This provides a gateway for youth that are identified as needing more services in terms of formal treatment and also provides students recovery as well as counseling support. They also work in the classroom on prevention activities.
Neuzil said one of the issues that have come up is where the dollars have been spent previously and how they are being reallocated based on this committee process. Correia said there was a change going from a non-competitive process to a competitive process and identifying what the priority services areas are for funding. In the current year, funding is going to the Iowa City Community School District to support student liaisons and juvenile court liaisons. Funding went to MECCA for the site based counselors and to Four Oaks to support the family support program they have for families involved in their Pursuing Adventures and Learning after school program which is a daycare program for children that have a behavioral, social, or emotional disorder.
Correia said funding went to UAY for the youth center, youth leadership, and community arts activities and to the neighborhood centers for after school community building and family support programs. The Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) received funding for their youth programs and anti-bullying that they have been doing in partnership with the schools. Big Brothers Big Sisters received funding for the school buddies. Neuzil asked what the impact will be on the programs by losing those dollars in the future. Correia said any time there is a shift in the way money is allocated there is going to be issues. For example, Four Oaks came in with an application to support the parent support program that is currently being funded with these dollars.
Correia said it is a great program however, the review committee did not recommend funding for that program because it did not seem to fit with the priority service areas. She said she spoke with Four Oaks about ways to use their County allocation. They are also looking at how they can get some third party billing into some of the services their staff person provides to families. DVIP and the school district did not come in with requests. R. Sullivan said it was interesting that someone who was receiving that money would choose not to apply. Stutsman said the school got a big grant. Correia said that could be part of it and DVIP may have felt the service they were providing did not fit the priority service areas. Neuzil said there were a few organizations that requested more than what was allocated and asked if they will still be able to provide those programs even though they are getting less.
Correia said the programs that were provided partial funding were Big Brothers Big Sisters and United Action for Youth. Big Brothers Big Sisters did not indicate that they would not be able to operate the program at that level of funding. She said there may be concerns for United Action for Youth. Anytime an agency applies for funding and does not receive the full amount, there is organizational work that they need to do to see where they have funding and how they can work their program. R. Sullivan asked if the RFP indicate whether the County money leverages other money or volunteers. Correia said it was looked at. Neuzil said they have collaborated with others. Correia said they looked at whether it addressed a priority service area, collaboration, outreach to under-served communities, and geographical service area, given that these are County funds. Four of the eight applications that came in were planning to serve one specific area in the County and they did not want to have a majority of the funds serving only one area when there are needs throughout the County. Correia said there were $400,000 worth of requests and full funding could not be given to all programs based on the dollar amount they had. The review team felt like all the programs that were awarded funding met the priority service areas, they were good applications, and strong programs.
Harney said they have Correia in that position to review those and make the best recommendation and get the best services. Correia said the recommendations are not coming from her, it was a Policy Board process that included other volunteers from the community who thoroughly reviewed the applications to determine their recommendations. It is difficult when there is not as much money as there are requests. Meyers said the review committee went through it twice and there was a lot of discussion from the Policy Board. R. Sullivan said he is surprised that two agencies that were receiving substantial amounts of money did not apply. It shows that going to an RFP process makes sense because why would they fund agencies that would not apply for the money. Correia said she thinks through the year long process of identifying the priority services areas they may have decided the service they were providing did not fit the priority.
Stutsman said the Board has always wanted to be able to adjust to the needs of the community as the community changes. She thinks that is what has happened with some of these programs. There was a big deal about the disproportionate minority population to the Department of Human Services and that has been addressed. She said she attended the Policy Board meeting and there has been a lot of discussion from agencies that did not get funded as much as they have in the past. She understands their concerns because everything is getting cut and it has an impact on the programs that have been vital to the community. Having the priorities set, an RFP process, having a review committee, and going to the Policy Board was a thorough process. Stutsman asked Correia to talk about the concerns addressed about lack of collaboration and duplication of services.
Correia said collaboration is challenging and there are areas where there could be more collaboration. That was an area of the application where applicants had to identify ways they were collaborating and all the applicants are collaborating with another entity whether it is schools or other social services agencies. As they move into the funded phase of the program they can attempt to work with the funded agencies to see where that can be maximized or expanded. That is something that can be improved and the work groups can try to address. She said the school district operates an academic mentoring program for seventh through twelfth grade that happens during the school day or right after school.
Correia said the review committee was aware of the program and knew it was in the community. When they looked at the two mentoring programs that were funded, Big Brothers Big Sister is the only mentoring program besides the community mentoring that provides for kindergarten to sixth grade. She said that program expands outside the Iowa City Community School District so the review committee felt that program is not duplicating any other mentoring program. The Community Corrections, for ages 12 to 17, overlaps in terms of age group with the academic mentoring program, it is a community-based program specifically targeting youth who have a parent who is incarnated.
R. Sullivan asked if CCIA duplicates the work of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Correia said they do not believe that it does. They are collaborating closely, especially for families that have a 12 to 17 year old child and also an elementary child. At the time of the application they had 11 youth involved in their community program and they are now up to 21, so they are seeing a need. They also have a weekly group to talk with other youth in similar situations in a safe and supportive environment. Stutsman asked if the neighborhood centers of Johnson County address areas outside of Iowa City. Correia said no, the neighborhood centers are geographically neighborhood based and the youth Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) are addressing are primarily low income, African American, and Hispanic youth.
Correia said they are offering pro-social programs during summer and after school. This is something that has come up as part of the planning and issues of keeping kids from getting involved with the criminal legal system. Harney asked if they are moving funds from one area to somewhere else, such as from UAY to DMC, that are basically doing the same thing. Correia said it is difficult to compare what they are currently funding to what is proposed funding for FY10. The old process was not a competitive grant and it was not based on the priority needs of the community. It is not fair to the process to say they are moving funds from one area to another because they are not really comparable.
Harney said it seems like they are taking money from one place and putting it in another for the same purpose but more focused. Correia said it was based on the identified needs and what the applicants were proposing to provide. R. Sullivan asked if the criteria was set by the Policy Board. Correia said yes and it was part of the process of developing the RFP. Stutsman asked if they can make adjustments to these funding allocations. Correia said yes because this is a recommendation. Stutsman said the neighborhood centers got full funding so the Board could take some of those dollars and apply them to UAY. Neuzil said he does not disagree with altering the numbers but he thinks there needs to be a process to figure it out.
Correia said these are the recommendations from the Policy Board and the Supervisors can change what they want. Stutsman asked if there was interest from the Board in making some adjustments in funding from the Neighborhood Centers to the UAY, and if there is then maybe they can direct Correia to look at that and bring a proposal back. Neuzil said that would be a better process. R. Sullivan said if they are going to do that he would like to hear from the committee because the Board asked them to do this work. Correia said she attached the review team memo that went to the Policy Board. R. Sullivan said he would like to have them give feed back if the Board was going to make changes.
Correia said the review team was making recommendation to the Policy Board and then it came to the Board of Supervisors. She does not know if the review team would have authority because it was a recommendation from the Policy Board. Neuzil said he agrees with R. Sullivan because the committee would be there to tell the Board why they made their decision. R. Sullivan said that moving money from one program to another might be the right thing to do but it seems arbitrary compared to what the review committee and Policy Board went through. Stutsman asked why Neighborhood Centers was given full funding and everyone else not. Correia said there were various criteria they went through and the applications were scored. Based on the strength of the application, Neighborhood Centers had the highest scoring application.
Correia said CCIA received full funding as well. The Neighborhood Centers had a strong evaluation component and that includes leverage because they utilize AmeriCorps Volunteers. Harney asked if the committee had any idea of what impact the shift from UAY to something else will have on their programs and are they going to take services away. Correia said this is not a general operating support fund. The review team committee has great respect for all of the agencies and believes that they work they are doing is very important to the community. Determining how funding would affect the programs overall was not a criterion because that is something for a block grant or other general operating support. Since this funding has been operating some what like that it creates difficulty in moving to a new way of targeting the funding. R. Sullivan said when they go to an RFP some things get cut and is difficult when it actually happens.
Neuzil asked UAY Executive Director Jim Swaim if he wanted to say anything to the Board. Swaim said he appreciates the work that the committee and Correia have done in trying to do this. UAY made a request to the Policy Board to maintain their current level of funding of $44,000 instead of the $25,700 proposed by the review committee. One thing UAY addressed in their letter to the Policy Board was that the feedback they received from the review committee was that their application had not done as good a job identifying an evaluation of some of the outcomes and background data. He said one thing he shared at the Policy Board meeting was that in their application they were proposing that they rely on the evaluation design that is currently underway from the National Resource Center for Family Centered Services, which is part of another youth development grant they are doing, the Community Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program. The feedback was they did not have an evaluation identified in the application. They were at a disadvantage because they were relying on an evaluation design that is contracted for by the State that is not yet complete. Swaim said they thought they were trying to be responsive to coordinating their evaluation design with other efforts to evaluate youth development in the community. He said he does not have a recommendation on where the Board would cut because he believes the programs all merit funding but this has a huge impact on UAY.
Swaim said the shift to a competitive process has an inventible result that hopefully adjusts in the coming year. If people are going to be competing for grants the collaboration that goes on is different than other processes. As a member of the Policy Board he does not think they did not review priorities or discuss allocations. He does not think it is accurate that the priorities had not been looked at in the last couple years by the Policy Board. This will have a huge impact on their agency and the specific program that serves a couple hundred young people. Their ability to do that is impacted by the loss of funds. Harney asked Swaim if they do not get this funding will programs be cut that will effect the age group they are talking about. Swaim said if they are not able to identify other funding, they may come back to the Board and ask for assistance. There may be some stimulus money they could apply for but he has not seen any that fits this category. At the proposed funding level, the result will be 15 to 20 less hours of staff support in development activities. He said he cannot give a number of youth who will not be served because they are going to try and serve the number they served in the past. Last year there were 280 recording project by kids, 314 writing projects, and 2,300 youth arts projects. They had over 2,000 young people involved in the arts and youth center activities. They did consult with the Iowa City Schools and they were hopeful in by not submitting a competing application that they would have a chance at funding some of the after school activities.
Swaim said one specific area that is likely to be impacted is the after school activities they have been doing at South East Junior High and Grant Wood Elementary school. In the recommendation the review panel said they would like UAY to direct their efforts with the $25,000 to Coralville and North Liberty but it also said that was subject to negotiation. If they are given $25,000 they would like to use some of that to support activities at the Youth Center. It was part of the deliberative work UAY did with the Iowa City Schools that made them hopeful they would receive the funding they were asking for. Iowa City Schools have budgeted nothing for next year for UAY work at South East Junior High but that is more related to the restrictions on funding for drop out prevention.
Correia said once the Board has voted on allocation amounts she will work with the programs on developing the agreements in terms of matching, the details of the plan, and evaluation. The review team wanted to make sure that with partial funding some of programs they presented in their application for Coralville and North Liberty were maintained. There were no other applications for services to provide programs for youth in those areas. Those particular communities are having challenges providing pro-social activities during out-of-school time. North Liberty has an estimated 2,000 youth that have DMC issues and lack pro-social programs during out-of-school time. She restated that after the allocation is approved, she would work with each applicant.
Swaim said he suggested in his letter to the Policy Board that if the Board of Supervisors were concerned with the UAY evaluation design then they would present it to the Board prior to receiving funding. He understands what the funding sources are up against but he thinks their project warrants additional support for youth development. Harney suggested that perhaps they can make some adjustments to give them additional funding. That might not be possible but he would like to have them take a second look at it. Correia said at this point the Board has the authority to make some shifts. She would feel uncomfortable having the process go back to the review team or to her to say they can move money around. If it were to go back to the review team then it would need to go back to the Policy Board. The way the process was designed, the review team does not have the authority to make a recommendation, however, the Board has the authority to make adjustments based on any criteria. R. Sullivan said there are services that are not present to defend and explain why they need more money. It is unfortunate that there is not more money. He said he has tremendous respect for United Action for Youth and for everything they do but he is uncomfortable changing these recommendations. He said Swaim made a compelling argument for his program but others would make one for their programs as well. He is comfortable approving what came through the Policy Board process.
Harney said he understands the needs of both places and is basing his opinion on what is going on in the neighborhood centers. The Sixth Judicial is looking at managing three sets of apartment buildings in the Broadway area and that will change the services there. Stutsman said it was unanimous in the Policy Board to go ahead with this allocation. Correia said there was actually one negative vote. Neuzil asked how many people voted on the Policy Board. Correia said there were 22 members at the meeting that did not have a conflict of interest and 24 total members present. Neuzil asked the Board if there is enough interest in changing the numbers or move forward with the recommendation. Meyers said this has been reviewed many times and the recommendations have stayed the same.
Stutsman said she attended the Policy Board meeting, voted in favor of the recommendations, and feels the Board of Supervisors have had a good discussion about the process, the programs, and how things came to be. Based on that if there is not any interest to make any adjustments she will go with what is being proposed. Neuzil said this is a one year process and their budget in future years may have impact on this. He likes that the Board of Supervisors has the authority to change these but given that this was a community process and something they gave Correia direction to pursue, he is fine with moving this forward for a vote.
Correia said the Children's Initiative has been a partnership between the Local Homeless Coordinating Board and the Juvenile Justice Youth Development program to raise private dollars to provide scholarships. These are for vulnerable youth, low incomes, homeless, and those involved in the juvenile justice or child welfare systems. She said this is to allow them to participate in cultural and recreational activities in Johnson County that they might not have the chance to participate in due to lack of finances. Parents can access up to $100 and use it for many different things. For example, to help pay the registration fee for Hills Baseball, help buy soccer shoes, provide funding for music lessons, swim lessons, and other recreational programs.
Correia said up until recently the Local Homeless Coordinating Board has taken more of a role in terms of having an agency involved in their group that keeps the money. There used to be a way Court Fines could be directed in this way and they were directed through the County budget. Accountant Kathy Lynch would receive an approved application and make payments. Successful Living was the holder of those dollars and it is not really part of their mission to provide funds for youth. It did not seem like a good fit to have the money come into Johnson County because they would have private dollars they would have to amend into the budget and people cannot get a tax write-off if they donate money to the Children’s Initiative that goes to the County.
Correia said they communicated with the Community Foundation to have money go into a charitable giving fund so the people making a donation could get a tax write-off and it is added in their materials that people can give to that fund. The Johnson County Council of Governments will receive the applications and make approval. The Community Foundation cannot make payments so the approved applications will come to Lynch and withdrawals will be made from the Charitable Giving Fund as funds are needed. The Juvenile Justice Youth Development Work Group will be the body that will revise the application as needed, monitor where the dollars are going, and track agencies doing outreach to parents to get applications in.
Correia said the Juvenile Justice Policy Board has created a Fundraising Committee. They have about $1,300 at Successful Living that they would use to open this charitable giving account. Those are private dollars that were raised with Johnson County Social Services as an organizational partner with the Community Foundation. Social Services will be the agency authorized to make withdrawals to cover the costs of approved scholarship applications. She said they need approval from the Board to open the account.
Correia said they entered into a contract with Linn County Community Service for $12,500 to initiate the Focus on Youth Fund. This provides financial assistance to families that have a child with a social, emotional, or behavioral disturbance. This is a Federal Mental Health Grant that Linn County was directed by the State to share with the four surrounding counties. Linn County was recently allowed by the State to release additional Mental Health Block Grant funds to the counties. Johnson County is eligible to receive $5,800 to add the $12,500 they have already received. These are dollars that need to be spent by June 30, 2009. She said they have had eight applications come in, six have been approved, and the other two are pending. Linn County would like to amend the contract to add those dollars in.
Medical Examiner Mike Hensch said the information he will be sharing through a PowerPoint presentation is from January 1, 2009 through March 24, 2009. He said February was a lower month but compared to last year was a very busy time. The cases for the Johnson County Medical Examiner's Office are accidents, suicides, homicides, unexpected deaths, unexplained deaths, unidentified bodies, and unclaimed bodies. Their primary autopsy consultant is the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) with Forensic Pathologist Dr. Marcus Nashelsky. If Nashelsky is not available they utilize the Iowa Office of the State Medical Examiner.
Hensch said the autopsies listed as FO are family ordered which means they have a medical examiner case but his office does not believe they need to order an autopsy. FO autopsies are paid for by the institution or the family, not the County or State. Hensch said the number of cremation permits trends up annually. This year they will probably end up in the 450 category which is not as high as last year. The County charges $75 for each cremation permit issued and no one can be cremated without a permit. He said the purpose of that is to make sure that no one is cremated without their death being appropriately reviewed. Typically four or five times a year a funeral home will call for a cremation permit and discover that the death is a medical examiner case, so the process does work.
Hensch said the volume increase can be due to several things. One example, since initiating the procedure with medical examiner investigators, they are much better at identifying the medical examiner cases. Formerly a lot of cases were missed. The increase is also a direct reflection of the increased volume at the local hospitals. The UIHC represents about 60% of their volume. He said the jurisdiction for a medical examiner is determined by place of death, not where the incident occurred. If someone was injured in Southern Wisconsin and then flown to Iowa City they become a medical examiner case for Johnson County if they die at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics.
Hensch said there are only two level one trauma centers in Iowa which are Iowa Methodist Medical Center in Des Moines and UIHC in Iowa City. Generally anything that is a major trauma, suicide, or homicide where a person did not die at the scene or any burn victims come to UIHC and become Johnson County cases. This is why they have such a high case load compared to a county of equivalent size, but without a level one trauma center. Because they are more efficient in identifying cases, increased population growth in Johnson County, aging population, and the increase of volume at the hospital, this is where their overall growth comes from. The growth in cremation permits is due to cremation becoming more culturally accepted and is more affordable, although the price of cremation has been going up since more people are choosing cremation.
Stutsman asked if he bills back those cases where the individual dies in Johnson County but is from another area. Hensch said if they are a resident of another Iowa County, they bill for them and have been 100% successful in receiving reimbursements. Stutsman asked if they got things straightened out with the Department of Corrections. Hensch said it works flawlessly now and the Medical Director for Iowa Department of Corrections Dr. Ed O'Brien is excellent to work with. They pay more quickly than anyone else. R. Sullivan asked if there is still no reimbursement from those that come from out of state. Hensch said yes, if someone comes from Illinois, Wisconsin, or someone just passing through, there is no reimbursement for those people. Stutsman asked if that is because there is no interstate compact.
Hensch said yes, there is no law that allows them to collect from out of state governments. Stutsman asked if they are working to get a law. Hensch said he is not aware of anything. Stutsman asked if it is a large enough amount that it would have a significant impact. Hensch said there are just a handful of those cases a year. They have been successful in recouping expenses from other Iowa counties and the Department of Corrections. He thinks it is fair because these incidents occurred in particular counties in Iowa and it would have been an expense they would have incurred anyway. Harney asked if Hensch had the number of cases for this year compared to last year.
Hensch said they are down slightly and he would guess they are not going to be as high as last year. They cannot anticipate what the numbers are going to be. Neuzil asked about projects he has been doing outside and the forums he has been attending. Hensch said he has been doing multiple presentations at universities and is doing a Trauma 2009 conference March 27, 2009 at Mercy Hospital Regional Conference. He said he also conducted training for criminal justice classes at Kaplan University and training sessions at the University of Iowa for the School of Social Work on death and dying.
Hensch said as his department becomes more known for that type of training, they get more requests. They are getting information out about what they do and are educating people about the general topic. Neuzil said it is great to have Johnson County be a leader in that area. Hensch said they are number one in the State in assisting people who die in the field to become tissue donors. From his experience, families say that was the only good thing that came out this because they were able to help someone else.
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek said Austin Peters Group out of the Kansas City area was originally selected to complete Johnson County’s non-bargaining compensation and classification study. The project was initiated after the first of the year and in mid-February she was notified that Austin Peters Group would not be fulfilling the agreement. They provided deliverables completed thus far, including the job evaluation data and the salary survey with benchmark positions identified. She said given the budget and timeline for the project, HR reviewed the original RFPs and is recommending to the Board that PJ Greufe & Associates from Davenport complete the study.
Shramek said Paul Greufe has 15 years of experience as an HR professional and has several years of county government experience serving as the former Assistant County Administrator/HR Director of Scott County. She said Greufe would be able to utilize the data already gathered by Austin Peters Group and finish the project for the original budgeted amount for the 95 positions. The budgeted amount was $33,095 of which $19,367.50 was paid to Austin Peters Group leaving $13,725 for PJ Greufe & Associates. At this point Greufe can still meet the original timeline of a July 1, 2009 implementation. She said they need to move forward with the contract. County Attorney Janet Lyness is working on adding language to it and Greufe has no problem with those amendments. Pending the County Attorney's Office changes, she would like to put the contract on a formal agenda for the Board’s approval.
Stutsman said she attended the Child Care Meeting that was held March 21, 2009.
R. Sullivan said he has been going with Dvorak and Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore to Sutliff where they are working on the Village Plan.
Adjourned at 11:42 a.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary