MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JUNE 24, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Key Issues work Session...................................................................................................... 1
Recap and Progress Report of Items Discussed at the May Key Issues Meeting....... 1
Update on Animal Ordinance................................................................................... 1
Plans for County Fair................................................................................................ 3
Agenda Items for Next Joint Cities Meeting.............................................................. 3
Plan for Decision on Name Badges.......................................................................... 5
Joint Emergency Communications Center Update.................................................... 9
FEMA Reimbursement to Conservation.................................................................. 11
Project Updates....................................................................................................... 15
Sutliff Bridge Update.............................................................................................. 16
Planning and Zoning Regarding Services Provided to Other Government Offices.. 17
Johnson County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.................................................. 18
Truck Routes.......................................................................................................... 19
Budget Suggestions from Suggestion Cans.............................................................. 19
Internal Processes, Expectations, and Other Operational Issues of the Board of Supervisors Office 20
Future Meeting Agenda Items................................................................................. 23
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:03 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman; absent: Rod Sullivan.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said he added this item to see if it would be helpful for the Board to have an update on items discussed last month. The Township Trustee meeting is scheduled for September 14, 2009 and he has been in touch with the County Attorney and the Auditor. Johnson would like to send out a reminder postcard to Trustees in August. The Extension Service is bringing someone to tape it so Trustees not able to attend can view it. Neuzil asked if there is any direction Johnson needs from the Board. Johnson said no as the only items in question are back on this month’s agenda.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said Former Board of Supervisors Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan were appointed to oversee a committee the Board appointed to look into animal ordinances and the vicious animal ordinance. M. Sullivan created a draft ordinance after a substantial amount of research, which the committee used as a starting point. The committee is made up of Stutsman, Harney, Public Health Director Doug Beardsley, Lieutenant Gary Kramer and Johnson. The committee wanted to know what is currently being done, so he called the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has an ordinance in place that requires licensing of dangerous wild animals, which require permits in the State of Iowa. They also provide shelters for animals. Public Health is currently investigating animal bites. Law enforcement helps in the rural area and in some towns as well. Most towns, even the small towns, have an ordinance in place. When the Board chose not to provide services to small cities, they went out on their own. Enforcement of their ordinances varies considerably. Their staff complete investigations and if they need assistance they will call the Sheriff’s Office for help. Most towns take their animals to the Iowa City Animal Shelter. The City of Solon has a vet that assists them. The City of Iowa City provides the largest service for sheltering of animals.
Dvorak said the Sheriff’s Office was very involved with dogs recently that were abandoned. County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said there were upwards of 20 dogs, some of which were immediately destroyed while others are being rehabilitated. Stutsman asked if there is a way to recoup the cost from the owner. Pulkrabek said his office would work with the County Attorney, but the owner signed over all rights and claims to all the animals right away. The animal shelter encourages his staff to obtain signed releases right away because it simplifies proceeding with the investigation and recouping the cost. Stutsman said there is still an opportunity to recoup the cost then. Pulkrabek said the County Attorney will likely ask for restitution through the criminal case. Dvorak said he spoke with Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell, but nothing had been decided on pursuing the fees the Animal Shelter will charge the County. He said Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne said the County has a budget of $110,000 per year for animal control. The last few years have averaged over $70,000 with the most recent fiscal year costing $42,000. The highest Dvorak remembers was $88,000. Neuzil asked what fund that comes from. Claiborne said it comes from Department 18. Neuzil said he thought the Board moved it into the Rural Fund after the cities were informed the County would not provide the service. Stutsman said it should be funded from the Rural Fund. Neuzil said it should be checked on.
Dvorak said the Linn County Health Department manages their ordinance and does the licensing and permits of certain animals, but contracts with the Cedar Valley Humane Society for enforcement and investigations. The Linn County ordinance is similar to what the committee has drafted currently. It works well for the Linn County Health Department to manage that process, which may be an option for the Board. Dvorak said he has asked the committee members to review the proposed draft, make recommended changes and once those have been returned the committee will meet to decide whether to proceed or not. Most cases are being taken care of between state law enforcement and the cities taking care of their own. He said he thought Planning and Zoning issued permits for kennels, but in the County ordinance kennels by definition are only allowed in agricultural areas. However, Planning and Zoning only has a setback of 200 feet from any property line for a kennel for breeding and boarding. He said if the County moves forward with the ordinance, Planning and Zoning would add a special permit for kennels.
Harney said the County tried to recoup the cost of sheltering animals from an incident by Solon, but there was a technicality so they were unable to. Pulkrabek said he does not remember the specifics. Neuzil said there are a few issues. One is dealing with the animals in the rural area. Another is how long the animal shelter holds the animals. He said the shelter has held animals for over 100 days and charged $100 per day. Neuzil said there are human service agencies and a jail that charge less for services on humans than that, so he has to wonder if there should be a limit. Dvorak said the committee is looking for someone to enforce a County ordinance other than Iowa City. They are considering taking animals to the Cedar Valley Humane Society because they charge Linn County a flat rate of $200 and take the responsibility for the animal. He will continue pursuing that option because cost is one issue the committee is concerned about.
Pulkrabek said one of the gaps he would like the County to address is tracking the enforcement ability on an animal that’s been involved in more than one fight. There has been multiple times his office has found out a dog has bitten more than one person. When the Sheriff’s Office takes the initial bite report, they respond and fill out the information, and then send it to the Health Department for follow up and investigation. He does not know what happens after it is investigated, but no one tracks how many times an animal has bitten someone. The County needs to act in those cases, possibly by taking the dog, declaring it dangerous and having it destroyed. Pulkrabek reiterated that can hopefully be addressed in this process as well. Assistant County Attorney Scott Finlayson offered to help as he will be the County Attorney’s Office representative working with the committee. Neuzil asked when the committee will get back together. Dvorak said he hopes they will meet within the next month. Neuzil said it would be nice to have this in place by next year’s budget process.
Neuzil said the County Fair web site is updated. Stutsman said the Communications Committee should be sending out a volunteer signup sheet. Johnson said it will go out next week. He thinks the Committee has decided against using pictures of kids. Neuzil said he likes the idea of playing video of the new building; people would stop to watch. He asked if the County still pays for their booth or if it is part of the investment the County provides. Stutsman said the County does not have to pay.
Neuzil said the County will host the next Joint Cities meeting in September. A tour of the new building was suggested. He suggested putting a 15 minute tour on the agenda following the meeting for anyone interested. He said the Board would like to have the meeting in the new building. Kempf asked when it is scheduled. Neuzil said it is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on September 16, 2009, but a tour could be at 3:30 p.m. Stutsman asked if access to the entire building will be an issue. Kempf said if it is held after the meeting, access would not be an issue, but the Board may need to send an email to department heads to ask if there are issues with a walk through at 3:30 p.m. There would be activity in the Department of Human Services and Mental Health/Disability Services. It would be easier to have it after the meeting because all the departments would be closed. Stutsman said it would be easier to plan for that. Neuzil agreed, adding the County needs to arrange refreshments. Stutsman said September 11, 2009 is Employee Appreciation Day so they may be running low on cookies.
Stutsman said the Board keeps hearing people question why the County, cities and school district does not work more together. There was just an editorial in the Press-Citizen on the placement of schools. These meetings are everyone’s opportunity to work together, yet all the entities continually hedge on these meetings. The joint meeting has talked about having more meat at these meetings, but they are basically project updates. She asked if the County wants to call that into question at this meeting. In the Finance Committee, they discussed all the entities working together. When valuations are projected to be down in revenue reports, the Board may bite the bullet on their budget, but if the school district does not and raises taxes, the community gets their bills and blames the County. It is not worth anyone’s time to just have updates that could read in the paper or in minutes. She asked if the group needs to start bringing issues that have an impact on the community.
Kempf said the County will be involved in the fall with the competitive side of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program which looks for joint entity projects. The Board could ask if the cities and the County want to join in a project. Neuzil said it would be nice to identify a joint project outside of Johnson County Council of Governments. He agreed with Stutsman the Board should discuss issues like tax increases or upcoming budgets because it was every person for themselves over the sales tax, stimulus dollars, and transportation.
Stutsman said the Board has to get everyone working together on the justice center, because that is the elephant in the room. Pulkrabek asked if the Board routinely talks about the justice center at this meeting. Stutsman replied the Board gives an update. Pulkrabek said his plea to the cities is to accept some ownership, but it falls on deaf ears normally because everyone has their own problems. He said he agrees with Stutsman 100% to try to elicit some help on the jail. Harney said it is a good talking item, but the cities feel like it is the Board’s problem. The cities have a vested interest, but are not willing to step up. Neuzil said everyone bought into the Joint Emergency Communication Center (JECC), which was a joint effort with County funding. Yet the justice center just seems to be the County’s problem. Stutsman said the Board has to start the dialogue saying this is the community’s problem, not the County’s, and everyone has to work together. Neuzil said the other local entities are going to have to hold back on a major project so the community can afford the justice center. It cannot compete against another bond issue.
Pulkrabek asked if the City of North Liberty is planning to put a proposal in an election to expand their library. Harney said their project will be three to four years from now. The flood mitigation issues will hurt the project because either the City of Coralville is saying they will tax for projects and Iowa City could do the same. Iowa City has said it will lower taxes and pay for the projects via the sales tax. As an agenda item, the budget issue is getting hot. Stutsman suggested having the County and Iowa City Assessors provide a forecast at the meeting. Meyers said the Assessors have spoken to the Board, but he does not recall them presenting at a joint cities meeting. Stutsman said it would be good for them to present then. Neuzil suggested adding items for the justice center, the budget issue, an Assessors update, and brainstorming on a potential joint community project. It would be good for public relations to start working together again. Stutsman said it would be good for the County to take leadership on improving these meetings.
Johnson asked if the Board wants an update on school boundaries as well. Stutsman said it would be good to know what the Iowa City Community School District is thinking. She said when the School District built Weber School they forgot to tell Iowa City, so there was no road until Iowa City scrambled to find money to pay for it. Harney said West High was the same. Neuzil said the 12th Avenue Extension was similar. Stutsman said there has to be a better way for all the entities to plan together or at least get a heads up. Neuzil asked people to email any ideas to Johnson and for him to solicit agenda items from all elected officials.
Kempf presented the Board with draft name badges. He suggested adding a place for employee’s job titles and ensuring there is a light background behind people for the pictures. Neuzil asked if the badges will be vertical or horizontal. Kempf said most badges are vertical. He said the plan is to vary the badges by department, but wants to have badges that are uniform through the County. Stutsman said she does not have a problem with the Johnson County Conservation Department using their logo. Harney said he feels it should say Johnson County because it will say Conservation as the department. Claiborne asked how the badges will be held on. Stutsman said employees will have lanyards. Kempf said there will be different options for employees who cannot have anything dangling. He asked what the policy will be for displaying badges or if would be up to individual departments. He said the badges do not make sense for the Sheriff’s staff. Pulkrabek said his staff has specific requirements for their name badges like police officers carrying firearms across state lines. Neuzil said the main issue is for employees to carry them. Stutsman said she believes everyone should wear them. The staff in the Health and Human Services Building do not know everyone who works in the building so it is an easy identification of those who belong in the offices. She does not want the departments to decide if they want to wear them because everyone should. Meyers said it does not make sense to have badges if employees are not going to wear them. Kempf said employees need them to access parking, the building, and individual apartments. Harney said he wants to make sure people who work around heavy equipment will not be wearing them around their necks.
Dvorak asked if the Board prefers full name or first name. Kempf said the current thought is having a large first name and a small last name. Neuzil said there could be an option for first name only. Stutsman agreed as long as the title also shows. Harney said it defeats the purpose because it is for identification. If the Board does not want to include the last name, then they should not make name tags. Neuzil said the last name could be included on the back. Kempf said different options would increase the difficulty of the process. The information in the Q Card program automatically imports into badge options. The more different variations the more complicated it is to import. To change from department to department is not difficult, but to have multiple options within departments is much more cumbersome.
Stutsman said the Board needs to decide what is on the badges and then move forward. She does not want the departments to be able to request changes because she wants the process to be simple and the badges uniform and consistent. Harney asked what the County has to hide. If the card does not identify employees, why have them. He said it is public information. Neuzil said he thought how Mercy Hospital handles their badges is a good because it includes the photo, first name, but gives an option to remove the last name for those that don’t feel comfortable showing it to everyone. He said County Attorney Janet Lyness does not want irate people looking her employees up in the phone book. Harney said County employees run that risk no matter what office they work in. It does not make much sense. Kempf said having the last name and a no last name option is easy to accomplish if the alternative is uniform across departments, but putting the name on the back or having more than one alternative per department becomes much more difficult.
Neuzil said he assumes the key cards’ access will be different between departments. Kempf said that information is in the programming. Neuzil asked if Kempf was going to print any information on the back. Kempf replied it will say ‘if found, return to…’ Pulkrabek suggested putting ‘Property of Johnson County’ on the back as well to remind employees to return their IDs when they depart. Neuzil asked if the Board is comfortable with what is on the back. He suggested putting the Administration Building address or the Board’s phone number as well. The Board agreed.
Neuzil asked if the Board agrees on the layout of the front. Kempf clarified layout means the logo on the top, the picture and department on the side. Neuzil said the first name could be bigger. Stutsman agreed. Kempf said there is a little fine tuning. He asked if the Board wants to include the employee’s position. Stutsman said she would. Harney said he did not think there is a need. People’s positions change, so the County would constantly be changing people’s name tags. Neuzil said it would be the official position title Human Resources (HR) provides. Stutsman asked if the University of Iowa includes their positions. Neuzil asked how many Supervisors want to include the job title. Harney said the more information the more difficult it will be to read. Meyers asked what the job title would mean to a member of the public. He said he does not think it is important. Stutsman said she would vote for it and Neuzil agreed. Neuzil asked Kempf to get instruction from Sullivan as he is the tie breaker.
Neuzil confirmed the Board wants the badges to be displayed either on a lanyard, belt clip or ID pocket. The Board agreed. Conservation Director Harry Graves said he does not know if a clip would stay attached when his employees move around. Kempf suggested the Board make an exception for Conservation because they will lose their IDs if they have to wear them. Harney thought Secondary Roads would be similar. Kempf said the employees should have their IDs when they are in any of the public buildings. Graves has found that the clip style holders and the belt style slip. Kempf said Conservation could try some options, but when their employees were in a County building, the ID should be displayed. Neuzil confirmed the Board was in agreement.
Neuzil asked how the Board felt about every department using the logo. He asked if Conservation is the only department that has a different logo. Graves said the Sheriff’s Department does. Pulkrabek said the County cannot put enough information on the badges for them to work for his employees. He asked if the Board expects the deputies in uniform to wear them or employees who occasionally use other County buildings. Harney asked if the non-uniformed employees wear a County ID. Pulkrabek said no. Neuzil asked if a law-enforcement officer is the only exception. Kempf clarified they would be in uniform. Meyers said it would be obvious they are County employees. Neuzil said otherwise, everyone would be expected to display the ID if they are working for the County in a County facility. The Board agreed.
Neuzil returned to the logo. Kempf said the Auditor’s Office, Public Health, and Conservation have their own logos. Neuzil asked if it would too out of the ordinary to just use the County logo just for this ID. Kempf said normally all badges should look the same because then even if the public does not read the badge, they instantly know it is a County employee. Meyers said if Conservation is wearing shirts with their logo every day, then it would not need to be on the badge. Neuzil said it would be easier for Kempf if the Board required the use of the County logo. Kempf said he will have to set up badges for each department. Neuzil said he would not lose any sleep either way, but given the continuity issues he would prefer to use the County logo only. Stutsman agreed.
Neuzil said the only question that remains is the name. Kempf said essentially each option is setting up a template that automatically imports information. Stutsman asked if there will be an option to not include the last name. Kempf said he could create a template. Neuzil said he is comfortable making the last name optional because the ID includes their picture and a large first name. The whole idea is to identify someone who is a County employee. He said if the Board does not include the last name as an option, departments will be up in arms about the badges. Meyers said the last name could be optional. Stutsman asked if the Board offers the option, is it open to all departments. Neuzil said yes. Stutsman said it would be up to the department head to keep a list of each employee’s preference so it out of Kempf’s hands. Kempf agreed departments would have to give him a list. He asked the Board if they would allow the department head or elected official to offer the option to their employees. Stutsman said she thought that was what the Board just decided. Neuzil asked if the Board, besides Harney, has agreed to offer the option. Harney said he does not believe there is a reason not to include the last name as it is public information.
Stutsman said the County needs a policy written in the Board of Supervisors Office handbook. She asked if it needs to be in the Employee Handbook. Kempf said it needs to be in the handbook employees are required to display the badges. Dvorak said if it is not in the handbook employees can say they will not wear them. Stutsman said it does not need to include the details. Kempf said just the expectation of employees to wear the badges is required. Neuzil said employees should be proud to wear them. Harney said they should be proud of their last name too.
Neuzil asked if badges are lost if the County will pay to replace them or if they are not expensive enough it is a concern. Kempf said so far there has only been two habitual offenders. Last time he replaced the keys he told the individuals he would charge them the next time. They have not lost them since then. Stutsman said it should be one replacement and then the County will charge. Harney asked if the card can be deactivated when it is reported lost. Kempf said yes, the most important thing he tells people is to report it so he can deactivate the card and make a new one. People should not be afraid to report it. It is when an employee is losing the card once a week that the County needs to deal with the individual because they are not looking for the lost card. Stutsman said people always have more ownership if they have to pay for things.
Stutsman said there is not a consistent policy letting Kempf know when County employees terminate. Kempf said department heads need to retrieve the keys. Dvorak said when employees start, Kempf provides the key and the employee signs a document. Upon exit, a file needs to be signed by both parties and the key returned. Kempf said there is not a consistent policy as it is weeks before he knows someone has left. An employee’s last day can be programmed into the keycard if they know in advance. There should be a formalized process. Neuzil said he would speak with Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek. Stutsman said the details should be included in the manual. Kempf said the County should communicate the badges will be of the format designated by the Board. Once Sullivan decides his preference on the job title, he will start with a small department and work forward from there. He said he needs to work out the easiest way to obtain the pictures. Johnson asked if the Board wants to place formalizing a policy on the Board’s agenda. Neuzil said it would not hurt to follow up. Kempf asked if this is an issue that needs to be communicated to the union. Harney does not believe this would be a negotiated item. Neuzil said the Board should check. He asked the timeline Kempf estimates. Kempf said it will be as soon as he can produce them. He said the Board should move forward with the policy in the mean time.
Graves asked if there is an option for employees to carry them in a billfold so if they find themselves in a public building they will have the badges with them. Kempf said he will have options for people to select from. Neuzil asked about the back strip. Kempf said there will be no back stripe. Neuzil asked if the County will need to wait until the swipe system is ready. Kempf said this will replace key cards that are already in place. The only information embedded in the card is an 11-digit number. What the number allows is part of the programming, which can be changed at a later date without having the card. He said there is no personal information embedded on the card. If an employee were to try to access another system, it would just record the number on the card. When an employee accesses the County’s system it will provide all the information associated with the number.
Pulkrabek said he would like guidance from the Board. Because of the timeline change in the project the Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) is investigating whether the dispatcher salaries can start coming from the JECC budget prior to being under the JECC roof. The problem is the County budgeted for a full year to run their dispatchers, but Iowa City did not. There is direction to the JECC attorney to investigate whether those salaries at six months could start coming from the JECC funding rather than the regular budget. Pulkrabek said since the Sheriff’s Office has budgeted for the full year, the difference would be reimbursed as revenue. He needs to know how the majority of the Board feels about that. Stutsman asked how Pulkrabek feels about it. Pulkrabek said he is somewhat indifferent.
Harney said he has concerns. Firstly, the people in question would not be employees of JECC yet because the hiring process has not taken place. The money for dispatchers is presently paid out of the Sheriff’s Office and from Iowa City. He has concerns about the legality if they are not actual employees of JECC. On the other hand, if JECC pays everyone’s dispatchers then it is a possibility, but he thinks it is premature to pay out of that funding. Iowa City had money set aside to do work on their communication system, so he would think Iowa City would have money available to pay the wages. He said he does not know for sure.
Pulkrabek said he is looking at it from the County’s perspective. He agrees with Harney. During the budget process, he had the understanding that everyone was going to budget for a full year. The Coralville Police Chief and North Liberty Police Chief budgeted for a full year to pay the County for services. Stutsman asked if the money was included in JECC’s budget for Fiscal Year 2010. Pulkrabek said there is money included for FY10 for salaries because the original timeline had them in operation during that fiscal year. Stutsman asked if taxpayers were taxed on two levels for salaries. Pulkrabek said it was more a pot of money. Neuzil said the County double taxed for employees with the understanding that if the employees were not part of the JECC, the money would be used for Debt Service. Pulkrabek said the unused money in his budget would go back to the General Fund. Neuzil said Iowa City was going to use the funds for a new fire station and did not budget for salaries at all. He said this is an opportunity for Iowa City to have their employees paid for out of the County’s budget. Stutsman said once again the County is being asked to bail out Iowa City.
Neuzil said once the employees come under the authority of JECC, then JECC should pay, but not until. Stutsman said that would be transparent for the tax payer. She assumed the entities were paying for their own dispatchers out of this year’s budget until JECC takes over. Neuzil said that is what he believes will continue. Pulkrabek said he is just one vote. Neuzil said if the JECC Board chooses to pay the salaries, it should come before the Board as there is a serious breakdown. He believes it would be a severing issue. Stutsman said if the JECC has not checked the legality, she does not think they can. Pulkrabek said if necessary, the County could ask Attorney Jeff Stone to confer with Lyness on the findings. Pulkrabek said he thought it had already been determined that monies could not be paid out of the JECC funding until the JECC was operational. Harney said if it is determined to be legal and is in the County’s best interest, then the Board could look at it. Neuzil said even if it is legal, he does not believe it is right. Stutsman restated she has concerns about transparency to tax payers.
Pulkrabek said the JECC will also be discussing human resource services as JECC will likely have to contract with an outside entity. He believes it will continue to drive up JECC’s operational expense because human resources will cost $150 to $200 per hour. Stutsman clarified the County and Iowa City both did not want to provide the service. Pulkrabek agreed. Stutsman said it may be cheaper to hire someone to do human resources rather than contract it out, especially if the contract gets into union negotiations. Harney said there will also be finance concerns because the director won’t be able to do payroll and other items. Pulkrabek said his understanding of the structure will include a Clerk shared with the Emergency Management Agency who will be able to complete those tasks. Neuzil asked how many employees will be needed. Pulkrabek said it is not yet 30. Neuzil said the managers of most small business take on those human resource tasks. Harney said the JECC would be different to most small businesses because of their unions. Pulkrabek said the County pays someone $150 an hour to negotiate the union contracts. Stutsman said that is not even expensive in comparison to other individuals.
Stutsman asked how many administrative staff the JECC requires. Pulkrabek said there would be two high level staff members below the director, one for information technology and one as an assistant director, but they are interviewing for a consolidated position. However, he saw a flow chart showing another position besides the Clerk position. They have not had a meeting to hammer that out yet. Stutsman clarified the makes an IT assistant director position, a Clerk and possibly another administrative person. Pulkrabek said JECC was considering a full time training officer, but he manages 125 people with those duties divvied up. Ambulance Director Steve Spenler has requested a full time training position for his 50 employees as well. He said he does not know if JECC changed the name or included additional duties, but he would prefer those training duties be administered by the lower level dispatch supervisors. Stutsman asked if anyone cares what this will cost taxpayers. Pulkrabek said he does. Stutsman thanked him. Meyers said it sounds like the County is the only entity showing responsibility. Harney said his last understanding was the JECC decided the training would be absorbed by the staff. Pulkrabek said he believes the next meeting will show that is not the case. He said he considers himself a steward of the tax dollar and will defend it. Stutsman agreed.
Neuzil said the Board needs a timeline before September of when the JECC will take over dispatching duties so the Board will not have to double tax. Pulkrabek said August 2010. Neuzil asked if that date is set in stone. Harney said that is the target date. Pulkrabek said everyone is pushing the JECC to move that date forward. He said it is a six to ten week process with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to approve a tower. One location was turned down. The next location is in the Iowa City Industrial Park area, which was fast tracked and approved. Pulkrabek said he believes August 2010 is reasonable. Nuezil said the Board would need to budget for the first quarter of FY11. Pulkrabek said the JECC will have a stronger timeline before the budget process begins. Neuzil said it would be nice for the Board to have a tour or an update from the director. Pulkrabek said July may be a possibility.
Neuzil said the he received Grave’s letter. He thought it sounded like a miscommunication with the Auditor’s Office. Neuzil asked for the timeline. Graves said on July 16, 2008 the Johnson County Conservation Board requested the Board transfer its revenues to the Conservation Trust account amounting to $101,674.16. That amount included $19,271 of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds from the ice storm of 2008. No action was taken until January 2009 when Neuzil became Chairman, but there was never any question regarding the amount. Graves said he was shocked to learn the full amount had not been transferred. After some time in hopes the rest was delayed, he spoke with Claiborne who noticed the difference was the amount of the FEMA money. Resolution 01-15-09-T1 transferred $82,403, which was the amount requested minus the FEMA funds. Nothing was said to the Conservation Board or himself about the difference. They are puzzled and troubled about it. Graves said the $19,000 was money spent during the ice storms of 2008. The check came to the Conservation Board for that amount. Section 350 of the Code of Iowa is enabling legislation for the trust account, and states that revenues received by the Conservation Board or those eligible for inclusion in the Trust Account. He was shocked to find this was not included and feels it should be, which he thought was understood from the beginning. Graves said he was here to request the Board fulfill that request.
Neuzil asked if Conservation has received FEMA funds before. Graves said they have. In 2007, the FEMA individual he worked with suggested filling out the forms on behalf of the Board. This storm was applied for on behalf of the Conservation Board and filed similar forms for the flood of last year. The Trust Account provides somewhere to place those funds and Conservation has utilized them very well over the years. Neuzil clarified the Conservation Board is expecting the FEMA funds for the flood as well. Graves said the Conservation Board would request those funds. Neuzil asked if that was the Conservation Board’s intention until July when it was determined the Auditor’s Office had not transferred the funds. Graves said the resolution the Board passed did not include the amount. He does not know where the amount transferred came from because the amount in the letter to the Board was for $101,000. He does not know why the amount was decreased.
Stutsman said Claiborne and the Auditor’s Office were doing their job. Part of the problem is there was an assumption made that FEMA dollars automatically go to the Conservation Department. The Board does not make that assumption, just like insurance payouts do not always go back to the department. In the past the Board has determined where those revenues go. Graves said he understood that. She thinks Claiborne and the Auditor’s Office saw it was contrary to Board policy so they subtracted the FEMA amount. Communication was an issue. Graves said Stutsman’s point was well taken, but the request was made to the Board. Stutsman asked if the letter delineated the amount of FEMA dollars. Graves said it was specified in the meeting and is on the tape as well as indicating it to both Chairman Sullivan and then Chairman Neuzil. He said two people may have been doing their job, but the ball was dropped on communication. Neuzil said if the Board gave the intention Conservation would receive the full $101,000, then the Board should commit to that. Stutsman said she feels there was miscommunication because she did not realize the $101,000 included FEMA dollars or she would have spoken up at the time. Stutsman said Claiborne said the Board did not provide $162,000 to Physical Plant or nearly $70,000 to Secondary Roads in FEMA dollars. Stutsman said in the interest of fairness and consistency between departments, she would not have voted for the transfer if she knew the FEMA funds were included.
Neuzil said the Board has set a precedent by keeping those dollars in the Secondary Roads Fund. He said there are three funds: the Secondary Roads Fund, the Conservation Fund and the General Fund, which would keep the monies that did not go to the other two. Harney said it does not make a difference which department the Board is talking about because the idea was to track associated expenses to be reimbursed from FEMA. He is concerned that this money is going into the Trust Account rather than into the operations, which the cost was paid from. If the money goes back to Conservation, then that is where it should go. Graves said that is not unreasonable, however, given the point in FY09 it would not be reasonable, but adding it to Department 24 in FY10 would be.
Neuzil said the Board seems to be talking about two issues: 1) the flood money coming and 2) the ice storm. The Board needs to determine whether the $19,000 should it go into the Trust, knowing next time the funds should be applied towards operating costs. Claiborne said the Board could amend in the $19,000 in the fall amendments for FY10. Neuzil asked if that would be an acceptable compromise for Graves. Graves said yes, and asked about the flood money. Neuzil said the flood money would also need to go into the operating expenses rather than the Trust Fund. Graves asked if both payments would be infused in the fall amendment. Claiborne said the Board could tell him to amend in the $19,000 to be spent as the Conservation Board directed while the Board could allocate the flood money when it came in. Stutsman said she wanted to deduct the money the Board provides Conservation then. Neuzil said the Board did not subtract those funds for Secondary Roads. Stutsman said Secondary Roads was short of their operational costs and did not receive the full FEMA reimbursement. Graves said the $19,000 was not the full FEMA reimbursement because it does not include State money.
Stutsman said the Board needs to decide if they will continue deciding how the additional revenues will be spent or if they will just be provided to every department. She said it is about fairness and consistency. She asked if County Recorder Kim Painter, who has additional revenues that are not returned to her office, will now start receiving those monies. Neuzil said in the past it was been specific to the fund. Stutsman said FEMA dollars are tax payer dollars meant to help the County defray the cost of the flood. She did not think FEMA gave the dollars to be put into a trust fund. Graves said if they are put into the Trust Fund, he could assure they would be expended for the good of taxpayers. Stutsman said she knows Graves does, but when the Board is trying on one level to build reserves, moving it to another department defeats the Board’s purposes. She thinks the Board sends the wrong message to departments when they say they get money from extenuating circumstances that they automatically assume it goes into the department. Neuzil said it has been brought before the Board to make the final determination. Graves added Conservation is unique because the Conservation Trust Account was specified in the Code. Stutsman said in her view it is just another County budget the Board has authority over.
Meyer asked when various departments have an annual budget, but have an extenuating circumstance like the ice storm, if they find money in the operating budget to pay for it or if they ask for a budget amendment to cover the shortfall. Claiborne said most departments other than Secondary Roads did not amend in their FEMA dollars. They are being held in the reserve so the Board can provide them, if a department gets in trouble financially. Meyer asked if the departments found a way to suddenly slash their operating budgets. Dvorak said most of his expenses were salary related, which was covered in the budget. Planning and Zoning did not need the $9,000 that went back to the General Fund because nothing was damaged or expended above the regular amounts like in Secondary Roads and Conservation. Planning and Zoning charged for fuel and mileage, but it all went back to the general fund. Most departments were that way but Secondary Roads and Conservation had other types of costs. His people just were doing FEMA investigations instead of their jobs. Graves said Conservation spent the money allocated for professional fees for the preliminary design for the operations center and maintenance facility. The bonding attorney told Conservation those funds could not be used for that purpose, which freed them up or Conservation would have had to amend the budget. Meyers clarified the money Conservation planned to use towards building project was diverted to the FEMA project. He asked if at some point the money has to be returned for the building. Graves said it does not because the bonding attorney said they could not use the outside money after the bonding was passed. That money covered the loss experienced with the storm.
Kempf said in Physical Plant, like Planning and Zoning, the salaries were already being paid so he did not expect to see the dollars returned. However, he had to pay for the dumpsters in the community because he had a line item appropriate to the expenses being incurred. That item was 12,700% over budget. He did not know he needed to amend FEMA funds into his budget, so was not able to buy the supplies and items he normally buys at the end of the budget year. Much of the $163,000 was for items he had already budgeted for. Stutsman said with Secondary Roads the Board provided the amendment to cover the monies Parker did not have because of the additional costs incurred. She said she has an issue saying FEMA dollars go into the Conservation Trust so the Board should just decide to transfer $19,271 from the General Fund to the Trust Fund. She said she does not agree with it. Neuzil said if there are FEMA dollars to be allocated, it should come before the Board. If the intent is to use the dollars for operating expenses, the Board will put them back into the operating expenses. Departments should not be penalized. Kempf said he may need to ask for an amendment in October to cover the items he was not able to purchase, but it will certainly not be $163,000.
Stutsman said again it is money that is not going into the operating budget. Meyers said that bothers him as well. Neuzil said Claiborne's suggestion was to allocate it into the $19,000 in the next budget amendment. Graves said Conservation has an expansion plan, which is what a large part of the Trust Fund will be used for. It will be used for a good purpose. Neuzil asked if Conservation can use operating expenses for that project. Graves said he does not have funds budgeted operationally for it; he would need to speak with Claiborne to see if it could be. Neuzil said it is the philosophy FEMA dollars are to be used for operational costs. Graves said that is reasonable to him. Claiborne said Department of Management Representative Jim Nervig said to put the money in the Trust was a Board decision, but it is stretching the Code. Neuzil said the Board should put the money into operating expenses in an upcoming amendment then.
Stutsman said that sends the message to the other departments to ask for the same thing. Harney said he is hearing the money is going to be used to upgrade Kent Park, but the operational budget is maintenance and labor. Neuzil said he asked if operating expenses could be used for the upgrade and it sounded like they could. Graves sounds like it would be reasonable, but the Trust Fund is specifically for capital improvements. Graves asked Claiborne’s thoughts. Claiborne said he could see the camp ground expansion being operational. Graves said he would consider it operational if it was understood and agreeable to the Board. He said there have been misunderstandings. Stutsman said she agreed, saying part of it was on Graves’ part due to his assumption the FEMA funds would be given to the department, which is a misconception. She said she treats every department that way. Secondary Roads assumed they could have the funds from the Prairie du Chien property sale, even though Parker said Secondary Roads was not making the assumption, and she does not want to send that message to departments.
Graves said as to an assumption or misassumption on his part, when Conservation makes a revenue request in the next fiscal year, he will personally deliver a letter to each Supervisor detailing the request because everyone was not on the same page last year. Neuzil said most important is that any additional FEMA dollars will be authorized through the Board to determine whether it will be given back to Secondary Roads, Conservation or the General Fund. Graves clarified the transfer would be by request of an amendment. Claiborne asked if the Board has decided to transfer the $19,000 in an amendment to Conservation in the fall amendments. Neuzil said yes. Meyers agreed if it goes into the operating fund. Stutsman said she does not agree because Kempf justified the expenses he incurred because of the flood costs caused a hardship in his operational budget, but she has not heard that from Conservation. Graves said in the case of the ice storm, Conservation had to clean it up and address it. Neuzil said the majority of the Board was comfortable amending the $19,000 amount into Conservation’s operating expenses in the next fiscal year. Harney asked if the money to repair the Hills Campground was FEMA reimbursed. Graves said those repairs were part of the flood costs. Harney asked if the money had been received by Conservation. Graves said it had not. Neuzil said the Board would talk about it again once it was received by the County.
Kempf said the Administration Building remodeling project had their pre-construction meeting last Thursday with 14 general contractors attending. Several contractors came back to look at aspects of the building, so he expects good numbers when they open the bids. The tentative schedule has Phase I being completed September 15, 2009, Phase II completed November 15, 2009, and Phase III, the project’s completion, on December 15, 2009. The County is adjusting what is included in the phases based on feedback from the contractors at the pre-bid meeting. An addendum will be sent addressing the issues. He said that project is moving forward and he is excited to see the numbers. At first glance the project seems complicated, but looking closer the feedback is it should be straight forward.
Kempf said the County is still working on punch list items across the street including the railing on the south side of the building, the railing in the stairwell in the north east stair tower, and resolving the sheet rock issue. The SEATS Secondary Roads project has some final items on the geothermal system. In both projects the contractor will not receive the retainer until the County is satisfied. Harney said the main issue was with the heating in the SEATS facility, which will not be able to be checked until next winter. Kempf agreed, saying the contractor messed around too long to check this past winter. Harney said the contractor does not want Kempf to sign off on it. Kempf said he will not.
Harney asked if the heat boiler air conditioning system in the Administration Building will be addressed in this project. Kempf said there are bid options involving replacement of portions of the system, replacing the boiler, and putting reheaters and evaporators in the ducts throughout the building. It will not get rid of all of the condensation when the heat index is 107 with 78% humidity, but the system will operate much better under normal operations.
Neuzil asked about stimulus dollars for projects. Kempf said he had successfully submitted the grant and has received an acknowledgement and acceptance letter, but is now waiting for approval. Neuzil said it would be a separate project. Kempf agreed, saying the Department of Energy is having difficulty getting the funds from the Federal Government. The windows project is estimated at $250,000, with the County paying a portion of it.
Kempf said he heard rumors the Sutliff Bridge expenditures would be run through the Physical Plant budget. He does not have those funds so he would need the FEMA monies amended into his budget to cover it. Harney asked why it is in his budget. Kempf said he does not know it is for sure. Neuzil said it is. Johnson said he understand that is the line item FEMA expenditures were ran through. Kempf said it more closely relates to what is taking place. Claiborne said in Kempf’s budget, there is a revenue line item for FEMA to receive funds and they were using an equipment item for expenditures.
Meyers said he spent time with the FEMA group at Sutliff Bridge. A historic group focused on the wreckage from the bridge structure trying to determine what to do with the piles of steel and lumber. In order to dispose of any of it, the historic group had to decide if there was anything worth saving. Then the FEMA group has rules on where and how it can be disposed of. The Sutliff Bridge Authority sent a Request For Proposal (RFP) last November to get bids on disposal, but the quotes were only good for 30 days. The County cannot send out another RFP until FEMA tells them where and how to dispose of the materials.
Meyers said the other issue is assessing what remains for structural integrity and feasibility in use as a pedestrian bridge. If that is possible, then the County needs a recommendation on how to proceed along with initial design suggestions. If not, then a recommendation to demolish the whole structure is needed. Parker sent out an RFP to firms he felt would be good candidates: two declined and two responded with bids. One bid was from a local firm, Van Winkle-Jacob Engineering, who bid $19,500. The second bidder, Calhoun-Burns & Associates, had been contacted by the Sutliff Bridge Authority to do the initial assessments. Both firms were talking about the same elements, but the second bid was $56,600. Van Winkle-Jacob Engineering does the bridge inspections for Secondary Roads and did the design work for the new Mehaffey Bridge so they have expertise in this area. It is not clear why there is such a large price difference. Stutsman said the cost difference is from the bridge inspection portion, charging $3,500 and $34,000 respectively. Meyers said it is not clear why, except travel time to the site. Stutsman asked where they are located. Meyers said West Des Moines. The initial decision was to recommend Van Winkle-Jacob Engineering. The next step would be to award the contract to one of the entities to assess the bridge. Meyers said both firms understood time was of the essence. He said the County is moving forward on the assessment of the bridge structure, but are stalled until FEMA replies on disposing of the bridge parts.
Meyers said the Board needs to keep in mind that even though FEMA has indicated they will reimburse the materials, there is a time lag between when the payments are needed and when the reimbursement comes from both FEMA and the State. Parker’s thought was if the recommendation was to return the bridge to a usable structure and FEMA agreed, the price tag could be anywhere from $500,000 to $1,500,000. It sounds like FEMA would be willing to cover the bill, but there will be a time lag. Stutsman asked if FEMA will not reimburse until the project is finished. Dvorak said that is their understanding. Neuzil said the County needs to figure out how to find the money in the meantime. Dvorak said it may take two to three years to get reimbursed.
Neuzil said as Secondary Roads and the Sutliff Bridge Authority have recommended Van Winkle-Jacob Engineering if the Board does not agree, then they will have to justify the cost difference to FEMA. The only advantage of Calhoun-Burns is they have already completed some work on the bridge. The cost differential is significant. Meyers said besides justifying it to FEMA, it seemed to everyone included at the bid opening that Van Winkle-Jacob Engineering did a better job addressing what the County had requested. Stutsman said maybe Calhoun-Burns did not want the job so they overbid. Meyers said sometimes contractors will increase the prices because they think they will be the only bidder or want to stay in an entity’s good graces so they bid, but bid high to avoid saying they do not want the job. Meyers said one of the owners of Van Winkle-Jacob lives in the area of the project. Neuzil asked how they want to proceed. Johnson said he will place it on the Board’s formal agenda for the following week. Neuzil said Secondary Roads does not need Board approval for that dollar amount, but thought it would be best for the Board to officially award the contract.
Dvorak said he sent a draft resolution to the Board last week. The response from the Board was similar on other office buildings other than County buildings. If the Board agrees, the County will not charge a building permit inspection fee for buildings like the upcoming new Extension Service building or new State buildings. There was inconsistency of feedback on how to charge, if charging at all, on County buildings. The question would also include Assistant Planner Josh Busard's time for the new Conservation buildings, which is up to 80 hours. Dvorak said he is here for direction.
Neuzil said if it is something related to County government it should be handled internally. If that puts a hardship on Planning and Zoning or their employees, then Dvorak needs to approach the Board. He said the State of Iowa, and the Extension Service of Iowa State are separate entities. Iowa City’s policy is to charge the County. The upcoming Global Information System (GIS) service will not charge for County services, but there is a separate rate for other governments. Dvorak said he charged Coralville, which they paid with no issue. Stutsman said Coralville always has. Meyers said he does not believe the County should give free services to other government entities. Harney said when the Iowa City School District wanted an exemption for a new building, the County did not provide it. The discussion at the time was the County would not charge their departments, but anyone else would be charged. Meyers said Iowa City’s departments will charge each other for services. Stutsman said on one level it is an accurate accounting of how much it costs to run a department when departments charge internally for services. Stutsman said Planning and Zoning has a plotter in his office, which Dvorak generously lets other departments use at a cost to his department. Dvorak said an ink cartridge is $250. Stutsman said the Board tells him to slash his budget so how does he recoup what he is providing to other departments. She said Busard has spent a lot of time diverted from other Planning and Zoning activities, so should those costs be reflected in the cost of the Conservation building. Graves said Busard’s involvement in this as a Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) project will be a feather in the cap of the County. He said the County is fortunate to have a person like that in its employ. Stutsman said the Board wanted Conservation to use that resource, but that is the other side of the question. Should there be an accounting or should the Board keep a mental note for when Dvorak asks for an increase.
Neuzil said with the GIS project, when it outside the norm, Planning and Zoning has a right to say no so it does not affect the department. Dvorak said after the flood he contacted all the cities for a map amendment to the flood plane maps. If a building is in the flood plane, the insurance cost is extreme. The cities spent a great deal of money saying areas were not in the flood plane and FEMA agreed. However, there was no resource to refer to so the banks were constantly calling the cities to see their map amendments. He agreed to have GIS Coordinal Rick Havel add the amendments to the GIS system, but it got to the point where it became burdensome. He had his staff trained to add the maps themselves because it is a service to the public. That was a decision he made.
Stutsman said she would like Planning and Zoning to keep track of the time they spend and include it in budget presentation to justify requests. Harney asked what Dvorak’s preference would be. Dvorak said his budget is currently showing a deficit in revenues which he can justify through FEMA, the Conservation building, and the Shueyville building. He said although his revenues are down, he will return to the Board the monies he does not spend, including funds for another building inspector, which should be about equal. Next year if Busard spends time on the Conservation building, he will allocate those hours to a LEED line item, which will give a true cost analysis. Dvorak said he would like to place this policy on the informal agenda. He will send a draft to the Board before that happens. He said Sullivan would like everyone to pay for Planning and Zoning services. Stutsman asked if the argument was so it would reflect the cost of operations. Dvorak said yes, but his draft would reflect what the majority of the Board has expressed. Stutsman said the Board is going to scrutinize the positions that are not being filled, so she told Dvorak not to count on those funds next year. Dvorak said thanks for the warning.
Neuzil said the Johnson County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan will be on each month’s Key Issues agenda to keep the Board updated. Busard said there are several measures to be implemented for the Plan. There is a strong employee education component to the Plan on energy efficient practices, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and benefits of walking or biking to work. To that end, he is on the next Communications Committee Meeting Agenda on July 10, 2009 to speak about education programs for employees. His has also been working on the employee commute component of the Plan and has been considering a ride share billboard. Now that there is a County campus, it increases the chance that employees in the Health and Human Services Building would work the same hours as someone in the Administration Building.
Busard said with the new parking measures and fees, good weather, and rising gas prices it is a good time to strongly look at encouraging employees to take alternative modes of transportation to work. He called the Iowa City and Coralville Transit Offices who both said the County could purchase bus passes, but will not offer discounted tickets. To provide discounted tickets, the County would have to set up a program buying tickets at the full pass price and then sell them to employees for half price. According to the Parking Committee, if an employee does not drive, they do not pay the parking costs for the day, so the Plan could build on that with a reward program building parking credit, for example. Busard said he will speak with Sullivan about these issues for the next Parking Committee meeting. Neuzil said Busard will also meet with Kempf to discuss energy use, but he can report to the Board following that meeting. Stutsman asked if Busard needs to be on the Space Needs agenda. Busard said yes.
Stutsman said Sullivan and she went with Parker to look at the suggested routes for the new chicken plant. There are not established truck routes in Johnson County so she wanted to see if there is enough interest from the Board for Parker to start investigating how other counties use them and what would be needed to put them in place. Stutsman said Parker warned the Board to be careful as everyone will want a ‘no truck’ route in front of their house. She asked the Board if they would agree to give direction to Parker to investigate the possibility of a truck route ordinance. Meyer said he would like to look into it because the area by the chicken plant was a large issue in the past. He said that situation is changing and Washington Economic Development Group Executive Director Ed Raber wants to speak to the Board about it. Johnson said he is not because another buyer that does not need to expand the plant has shown interest. Neuzil said there has been a significant change. Meyer said regardless of an expansion, trucks should not be on the road. Harney said the best route is generally the most direct route, but asked how the County would control a farmer having a semi-truck come to his residence off a truck route. It would not work. Neuzil said truck routes do not generally include farm usage. Stutsman said these routes would designate routes for industrial uses like hauling chickens or gravel. She said there are pros and cons. Right now she just wants to know if there is enough interest to have Parker investigate. Harney said it does not hurt to look at it, but the County may have a hard time enforcing it. Neuzil said there is enough interest.
Johnson said he had a suggestion can in his office when he started and noticed about a dozen suggestions in the break room. He said Kempf and himself located as many cans as possible. He discussed the suggestions with the Finance Committee and has sent the Board the compilation of those suggestions. The Finance Committee suggested sending them to department heads and elected officials, but he wanted to discuss them with the Board first. Stutsman said the Board needs to respond because if they put the containers out, they have a responsibility to consider the answers and want the employees to think their efforts were worthwhile. Meyers said he may be being defensive, but there are a few direct references to Supervisor salaries. He finds it interesting that someone would suggest a 3% increase for a Supervisor is too much, when every employee received a 3% increase. The amount of money saved keeping their five salaries stagnant is nothing in comparison to keeping 500 employees salaries stagnant. Stutsman asked if people could take unpaid leave on a voluntary basis in reference to one of the suggestions. Johnson said he does not believe it is in the Employee Handbook if it does not fall under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Neuzil said it has been done before in the County Attorney’s Office. Stutsman said the Board should allow it if the department head approves. She said she loves ceiling fans in response to another suggestion to install them.
Neuzil suggested using a scoring system to identify important suggestions on the list to determine what to pursue. Johnson asked if it would be better to just say yes or no to each. Neuzil said Johnson should bring a list back to the Board of three or more yes answers. Stutsman suggested putting an update in “Keeping Up with the Johnsons” as to the feasibility of each. Since there are several suggestions on pay cuts for the Board, they could explain how the salaries are based in relation to other elected officials and deputies. Johnson said there were lots of comments about office hours, which are determined by elected officials. Neuzil said it currently is, but it does not have to be. Johnson suggested an article explaining why the hours are what they are. Neuzil said he would love to read it because the different office hours in the Administration Building are unbelievable.
Stutsman asked how the Board is going to prioritize the list. Johnson said he will get a tally from each Supervisor on yes and no answers and ways to promote the responses in the newsletter. The recommendation of the Finance Committee was to send the suggestions to department heads and elected officials. He asked if he sent an email with the suggestions attached would be sufficient. Neuzil said that would be fine because the suggestions are all internal until they become potential policy changes. The only suggestion can still out is in the break room, but there is nothing new. Neuzil said he would check the online version and forward any additional suggestions to Johnson.
Stutsman said the Board had talked about having laptops in the Boardroom and she wondered where that stands because then she would not need to print out as many papers for the meetings. Neuzil said the question was whether the Board would get five new laptops or use the existing laptops. He said Stutsman could use her laptop currently as there is wireless internet. Stutsman said she does not have a laptop. Neuzil said one of the issues is there is not much space. Stutsman said it would be nice for saving paper. Neuzil said the packets they get will be electronic. Stutsman asked Johnson to speak with Information Technology (IT) Director Jean Schulz to see if it is included in the Board’s reorganization. Meyer said there are smaller laptops available that would fit on the Board’s table. Neuzil said it would be nice to have an update on the Board’s portion of the remodeling. Johnson said the Board would know more once they get the bids. The large room in the Health and Human Services Building has been reserved for Board meetings from October through December.
Johnson said there is an interest in having materials for Board agendas sooner. If the Board gets a hardcopy at 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, he thinks they would get more materials on Wednesday, so his idea is to scan and email the packet along with a draft agenda. Neuzil clarified that Wednesday morning they would receive the hard copy. Johnson agreed. He said when Iowa City’s agenda gets posted, each agenda item is linked to the packet documents. Eventually he would like to work with IT on that. Johnson said the Attorney’s Office also had an interest in getting the materials sooner. If providing the packets electronically works well, the Board could consider providing them on the web site with the agendas. Stutsman said it would need to say tentative. Johnson said the packets would likely be posted on Wednesday morning once it has become finalized.
Johnson said in the web site archives there is a random list of documents. He asked if organizing that was part of his responsibility. Stutsman said it might not be in his job description, but she believes it is. Neuzil said it is everyone’s responsibility to report things they notice are incorrect, but Johnson is the main contact. Johnson said if there are things the Board would like to put on the web page to speak to him. He asked if having a master list of committees in the office would be sufficient rather than providing fresh copies each time or suggested updating the copies on a quarterly basis instead. Harney said he would not mind getting the update electronically each time it is updated. Neuzil agreed. Johnson said as his part of his orientation checklist he is ready to meet with mayors and clerks. He asked if any Board members would be interested in accompanying him, especially to their liaison entities. Stutsman and Meyers said they were interested. Neuzil said he is as well, but it is up to each Supervisor. Stutsman said it would be nice for the Supervisor to introduce Johnson. Johnson said he would look into it.
Johnson said the Board has been advertising for a year for someone from the University to fill the vacant position on the Roadside Vegetation Committee. He looked at the resolution determining the Committee, which says the County Engineer may consider those positions. He does not believe that position is required as there is not a specific number of members specified. The Board could also choose to have Parker appoint the Committee, but if there is not a reason the Board has chosen so themselves. Stutsman said when the Committee was set up, there was a lot of community interest and upset people about how the roadsides were being managed, which is why all the different constituencies were included. Now the County does not have the issues or the interest. The Board had asked Roadside Vegetation Manager/Weed Commissioner Chris Henze to make some changes. Neuzil said Henze was to recommend a specialty or an at large member. Johnson said he spoke with Henze about it. He said the resolution states the County Engineer can appoint any number and will ‘consider’. The Board turned someone down they did not have to. He asked if the Board would still like to make the appointments. Neuzil said the Board still has to appoint the individual. Johnson said the resolution specifies the County Engineer can. Stutsman said the Board has in the past. Neuzil said the Board should continue what they have done in the past, but it sounds like this Committee has some flexibility. Johnson said he will look into appointing the person who applied. Stutsman said she cannot believe the Board wrote the resolution in that way. Johnson said the Roadside Vegetation Plan changed the resolution from ‘shall’ to ‘may’ consider.
Johnson asked what updates the Board would like to receive from the Johnson County Fair Board. The Board continues see their minutes every other month. Meyers said he does not remember receiving minutes from them recently. Stutsman said she does not either, but believes it is important. Neuzil suggested the Fair Board speak to the Board on a quarterly basis or twice a year. Stutsman said she thought the Fair Board should. The Board agreed on quarterly updates. Stutsman said the Board used to get minutes from the libraries. She asked if the Board wants to ask for electronic copies. Neuzil said the libraries send copies to their members, so they could just add the Board to their list. Stutsman said the County provides substantial funding so should get the updates. Neuzil asked for the libraries agendas and minutes electronically. Johnson confirmed the Board also wants electronic minutes from the Fair Board. Stutsman said Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia receives minutes from the human service agencies. Neuzil said there are about ten line items that have no oversight other than the Board. Stutsman said the Board should get minutes for each of those. Neuzil said the Board should discuss having a committee to oversea their budgets. Johnson asked if the Board wants minutes from groups where a Supervisor is a member of their governing board. Neuzil said he assumes the Supervisor could pass out the update. Stutsman asked Johnson to start with what they discussed and the Board would consider any others.
Johnson said Schulz created a calendar for Board employees’ schedules and meetings. He said he did not think it could track all the Supervisor’s individual meetings, but asked if they want to include vacations or any large blocks of time. Stutsman asked if it is an Outlook calendar. Johnson said it would be separate because including everyone’s meetings would be chaos. He thought it could show information the Supervisors wanted to communicate to Johnson. Stutsman thought it would be helpful, but asked if Johnson has access to her Outlook calendar because she would be happy for him to. Neuzil said neither Harney nor he uses Outlook, but he reports that information to Board of Supervisors Secretary Jo Hogarty. She could put that information on the calendar. Johnson said he did not realize that. Johnson said he would work with Hogarty to add them. Neuzil said that would help Johnson in scheduling meetings. Stutsman asked if Supervisors calling Hogarty to let her know if they will not be in is an issue. Johnson said it is an issue when the public calls and all Hogarty can say is the Supervisor is not in. Neuzil said it is important for Hogarty or Johnson not to say when Supervisors are out of town for security reasons. Johnson said it is helpful to tell a caller when a Supervisor will be back in the office. Stutsman said she will start calling in again. Neuzil said when he schedules Board time, but cannot make it, he emails or calls Hogarty.
Johnson said he is looking into a water cooler for the office. Stutsman said he should poll the Supervisors. She said she has a hard time with tax payers paying for water when Iowa City has spent millions on a plant that produces decent water. Neuzil said the Board would not have to buy bottle water for events though because they could use the cooler. Johnson said there would be some cost savings and the wellness components in drinking more water because it is cold. Stutsman asked if the Board can’t drink it from the faucet. Johnson said people do not drink as much because it is not cold. Neuzil said the Recorder’s Office, IT and the County Attorney’s Office have one. Stutsman asked how much the County spends on water coolers. She said she also has an issue with taxpayers paying for coffee. Neuzil said taxpayers pay for a priest to say a prayer every morning at the capital. He asked Johnson to poll the Board, but said it would have to be found in the existing budget.
Neuzil asked Johnson to check on getting the same phone system from the Health and Human Services Building in this building during the remodeling. Meyers said to speak with Kempf first. Neuzil said the last time he spoke with Schultz, the two were not communicating about it. He asked Johnson to follow up with Schultz to see if they are now. Neuzil asked for an update on the evaluation form which IT is testing and what the timeline is. Stutsman said Johnson should check with HR on that.
Harney left at 11:55 a.m.
Graves said it was his understanding from the last meeting, that the agenda item he discussed with the Board today would be handled tomorrow at this week’s Board meeting, but it is not on the agenda. He would like the Board to include it on the July 2, 2009 agenda. Stutsman asked what Graves wants included. Graves said it was his understanding the Board agreed they would permit a budget amendment for that amount. Stutsman said an amendment requires a publication so the Board agreed to pass it during the regular process in the fall. Neuzil said as a majority of the Board would allocate it in the next fall amendments. Graves asked if these are official minutes then. Neuzil said they were. Stutsman said it will be included as a budget amendment in the fall, where it would be in a publication and the Board will vote formally. Neuzil said Graves heard three members of the Board commit to that. Graves said there is a consensus then. Neuzil agreed. Graves said he was remiss in not following that.
Adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary