MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JUNE 25, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
GIS Coordinator Rick Havel: Approval of Government Pricing Rates for GIS Services
Medical Examiner Michael Hensch: Approval of Medical Secretary Job Description
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Andy Johnson
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.
Sheriff’s Major Steve Dolezal said that County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek sent a memo to the Board on June 23, 2009, that laid out the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program money. The grant money received by the City of Iowa City and Johnson County totaled $60,597. Dolezal said the Department of Justice began the year using a formula to determine the distribution of the grant. Iowa City was getting a greater portion of the grant until an agreement was reached between Iowa City Police Chief Sam Hargadine and Pulkrabek concerning the breakdown of the grant. This agreement was favorable to the County.
Dolezal said Hargadine and Pulkrabek have agreed that they would like to set that money aside this year and use it to fund the equipment that will be needed for a firearms range. Dolezal acknowledged that to help offset the start-up equipment costs, the Board and the Iowa City City Council have taken a long term planning approach to setting money aside for the range. Dolezal said that part of the grant application process requires a memorandum of understanding between the two governmental entities, and he said he forwarded all necessary information to Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell for review. The documents were then returned with Chappell’s approval. Neuzil asked whether the $60,597 would be put toward the multi-jurisdictional firearms range, and Dolezal said that each entity would keep its portion, with the idea being to use it for the equipment. Neuzil then asked whether this issue was separate from the land purchase. Dolezal confirmed that it was, and that in fact, this money can only be used for equipment, and not land purchase.
Meyers then referenced a letter from the Sheriff that says that the grantees have four years in which to spend the money. Keeping in mind that a firearms range is going to be a controversial topic, Meyers asked what will happen if it does not come together within four years. Dolezal stated that the grantees will have the opportunity to resubmit and change that. Stutsman then asked if this money is being set aside in the budget, and whether Budget Coordinator Richard Claiborne knows that this money is coming in for the training center. Dolezal said that with the Board’s approval, he will make sure that Claiborne does know to set it aside. Dolezal added, if the four years passed without the project’s completion, then the Sheriff’s Office will submit a proposal cataloguing law equipment purchases for which this funding can be used.
Information Technology Director Jean Schultz said that today, the Johnson County website provides property look up by parcel number or parcel address only on the real estate and the Geographic Information System (GIS) look up screens. Schultz noted that on the property and tax information search page, users must enter a parcel number or parcel address in order to access names and other information. Likewise, on the GIS Online Mapping site, a user can only enter a parcel number or an address, and then display names before going to a map. If the user begins directly on the GIS map and clicks on the identify button after having located a parcel, the program will display the deedholder's name and the name of the contract owner. Normally, people know their parcel address but they may not know their parcel number. However, agricultural parcels without a dwelling on the property do not have a parcel address, and so a parcel number is required.
Schultz stated that her team had a request from the Finance Committee to put copies of tax statements on the web in order to give people more information both about how taxes are calculated and about where tax money goes. The only means by which the look up for a property can currently be done is with a parcel number. Some departments feel that Johnson County should add look up by name to these online pages because it would save employee time, be more user-friendly, and also allow 24-hour access. There are some departments not in favor of name look up because of confidentiality and security concerns. Schultz found that the Johnson County Assessor’s Office has name look up on its site. The Iowa City Assessor's Office does not have this form of look up on its site, and does not intend to add it. Look up by parcel address, Schultz stated, has generally been sufficient for what they need.
Schultz said she researched several other counties, specifically larger counties and those close to Johnson County, and found that the following counties have name look up: Scott, Polk, Woodbury, Benton, Iowa, Cedar, Washington, and Pottawatomie. Dubuque, Story, Black Hawk, and Linn Counties and the City of Cedar Rapids do not have name look up. GIS Coordinator Rick Havel contacted Snyder Company, which hosts the Assessor websites for 43 counties, and found that of this total, 26 feature name look up and 17 do not. Schultz said that she does not have a recommendation for one action or another, there are pros and cons to both, and that she is simply bringing this issue forward.
Meyers asked for clarification that the County Assessor's Office already has name look up, and Schultz confirmed they do. She explained that the Assessor's Office website links to a site hosted by Snyder. Meyers said that City Assessor Dennis Baldridge said that their office will not feature name look up. Schultz added that Baldridge sent an email to Meyers and copied Schultz, in which Baldridge noted that people have expressed concern over name look up, but that no one has written to expressly request it.
Schultz said that it is easier for Baldridge to not want to feature name look up, because almost all of the parcels in Iowa City have a parcel address. However, within the county, there are many parcels that do not have a parcel address. Neuzil then asked whether the central question in this discussion relates not only to GIS look up but also to real estate. Schultz said there is a screen for real estate parcel look up where the user can enter a parcel number or parcel address. There is the GIS Online Mapping look up, which displays a map after the user identifies a parcel. The other screen contains a general look up where, after a parcel has been located, a display table is available which shows parcel information (including a name), and provides links to the Assessor’s site for assessor information, to the Treasurer’s site for tax information, to the GIS map for information on that parcel, or to the sex offender map.
Neuzil asked if on other department pages, individuals can currently look up information by entering persons' names. Schultz said that the Recorder’s Office allows individuals to look up mortgage or title information by book and page, even while most people aren’t going to know the book and page numbers. The Recorder's website also features look up by name. Additionally, to pay taxes online using the State Treasurer’s system, name look up is available. Neuzil clarified then, that the State of Iowa has name look up, and Schultz said that it is not a true State of Iowa site, but rather an association of treasurers. Their thinking, she said, is that if people want to pay taxes, then they should be enabled to do so easily, without requiring knowledge of a parcel number.
Stutsman stated that she supports consistency, and that she has been opposed to the name look up feature ever since the subject was first broached in GIS Committee meetings. She also said that she fully understands and supports both public records and making that information available to the public. Even still, she has concerns about the ease of access, noting that there is a difference between having to take a number of steps to find out where a person lives versus simply entering someone's name in a computer screen. Stutsman expressed that there needs to be some privacy in public records and that this may be the only option by which to preserve privacy. She recognizes that opponents will argue that anyone can walk into the Assessor’s Office now and get that information during regular business hours. However, it is totally different if a person is required to walk into the building to personally gather the information, than in getting the information at midnight on a home computer. Stutsman said this is one of those times when the County should try to protect individuals' privacy.
Meyers said that he feels the same way, noting that there are some people in sensitive jobs within the County Sheriff's Office, the County Attorney’s Office and the Department of Health and Human Services, who have both requested, and gone to lengths themselves, to not have personal phone numbers or addresses published because of issues that may arise with distressed clients or inmates. Meyers said that if it becomes necessary for someone to find out where a person lives, it can be done, but he is not convinced that it needs to be so readily available that anyone can get the information while searching the Internet at midnight from a personal computer.
Sullivan said he has heard from a number of Johnson County employees who expressed concern about this issue, and that he respects their concerns. These are employees from County offices who have frequent dealings with a diverse public body, and do not want the public to be able to find them. Sullivan stressed the Board must keep in mind that this information is public record, and asked where the line should be drawn in making information difficult to access. Hypothetically, people who request such information from the Assessor's Office could be asked to return the next day to get the information. Sullivan said that the Board of Supervisors needs to think hard about restricting access to information that people have a right to get. The County can do it in this case, Sullivan said, and stated that there are valid arguments. But, he asked, what about the next case. There are literally thousands of records for which someone could make a case in support of keeping the records private. He asked to what extent the County should make such access difficult.
Stutsman commented how interesting it is how times have changed, especially in that people once had to go by horseback to get public records, and now, individuals can manage instantaneous access in their homes to nearly every kind of information because of the Internet. She then said that the issue is ease of access, and if someone really wants personal information, she wants them to have to work for it. Sullivan stated that he had just experienced a need for retrieving personal information, and that he was grateful to be able to conduct this information search from home, rather than have to drive to Tipton in Cedar County. Stutsman said that it is unfortunate to have to penalize individuals that have legitimate reasons to administer these searches, but remained concerned about those people who would want information for the wrong reasons.
Sullivan responded saying it is compelling to hear the arguments from both someone in the County Attorney’s Office and from a Deputy Sheriff. However, some people do not buy into an argument that employs slippery slope reasoning. He said if this is such a big concern for the County, they might consider making all information a little more difficult to obtain.
Neuzil contended that it is already easy for people to look up information from home at any hour of the day or night. He referred to the Treasurer’s Association and Johnson County Assessor’s web sites. He said if members of County offices want to make it a little harder, then they can make those inquiring come into the most appropriate office. But he also questioned why, if this information is already accessible, the County would then make it inaccessible. Neuzil said that this kind of information is already out there, and so the County should provide this information that is already accessible. He understands why they said no in the past, but the technology has put that information out there.
Harney expressed that he has mixed feelings on this situation, and that he certainly understands the availability of information, but thinks that as it is now, there is probably too much available about people’s personal lives. A person can even go online and get a diagram of their house. There is a certain amount of paranoia and individuals need to be protected as much as possible. He noted that the extra step an individual is required to take may temper any impulsivity or anger they feel towards someone. All of this information is available to the public now, and he said he would lean toward making information more difficult to access. He added that just because the information is incredibly available, does not mean that it should be laid out for everyone to access anytime.
Neuzil observed that it sounds like there are three Board members who are not in favor of putting the information on the County’s system. Schultz replied saying that is fine, and that she is not lobbying for support or denial of making the information available. Stutsman thanked Schultz for bringing the information to the Board, and said she did not know the County Assessor’s Office had a name-based search on its site. Schultz said that, until recently, she did not know either. Sullivan asked when the County Assessor's Office added the name look up to its website and Schultz said she does not know.
Stutsman wondered whether there could be way for people to opt out of having the information in their public records. County Attorney Janet Lyness responded by saying that as these are public records, people have access to them. She noted that ease of access to any public record is another issue. Lyness continued to explain that having a database does not mean that every single thing must be included. The database could be set up so as to inform its users that they can get all addresses, but that they can only access those names that have not been excluded. While the Board cannot say that an individual can opt out of disclosing any public record information, much depends on what database is used, meaning that not every database needs to include all information. Schultz responded to Lyness’s statements by inquiring as to whether the County could have a name look up for some names and not other names. Lyness said that, yes, this is possible, as long as those administering or designing the site are clear in letting the users know what is available, and the additional means by which names can be attained. Schultz noted that that adds a lot of complication to the procedure in setting up such a database, but that it is possible. Sullivan said that in his personal situation, he was looking for ag land without a parcel number, and so the name look up proved important in his case.
Havel said that Johnson County has never charged a government agency – within or out of Johnson County – for GIS services such as map production, database development and analysis, building reports, and so forth. Havel noted that this is because they have not been inundated by these requests. The requests have been sporadic in nature from Iowa City and North Liberty, and primarily from fire departments wanting maps for their areas. All have been very interesting projects to work on, but none have been very consistent in nature until recently.
Havel explained that for the last two years the County GIS staff in Information Technology has completed a project for the Iowa City Fire Department to assist in an application for their accreditation program. This project ended up taking a significant amount of time, and will be a continuing project, in which GIS Services will help them maintain that information each year. The focus of this assistance is annual incident mapping that requires that GIS Services take those addresses at which there has been an incident, geo-code them, plot them onto a map, and then analyze the Fire Department’s response times. In the past, the department has not charged any fee for service.
Havel said the GIS Policy Committee recently met to discuss charging government entities for services rendered, and it voted to proceed with a charge of 50% of what the public would normally be charged. Havel has come before the Board to seek approval for this change, with an added caveat of being allowed to waive these fees on a case-by-case basis. He cited projects being worked on as a partnership. There wouldn’t be a charge for work less than two hours, to not nickel-and-dime other governmental entities. The policy would be a controlling factor to prevent overuse of the County’s staff.
Sullivan asked whether Havel had a chance to review patterns in service delivery in order to estimate how many projects and what kind of charges could be expected. Havel said that the last project they completed for the Iowa City Fire Department took about 17 hours, and the cost was roughly $1,000. To clarify, then, Sullivan asked, whether if what was proposed were passed, GIS Services would simply have charged the Iowa City Fire Department $500 for that project. Havel said yes, and stated that GIS Services would also give notice to all entities so that they could plan appropriately, even while these charges would likely be small in nature. It seems reasonable that if a service be either recurring or valuable to a department, that that department budget in order to pay for it.
Sullivan asked whether it is fair to assume that if these groups went to the private market, they would find that the County GIS Services would be less expensive, and Havel said the County services would definitely cost less. Havel noted that most private sector consulting firms would charge around $100 to $150 per hour. At the County rate for analysis, normally $70 per hour, the fee to the City would be $35 per hour at half the normal price for this service. Schultz added that basic map production would occur at a lower hourly rate. Havel confirmed that, and added that the charges all depend on what kind of service they are providing.
Stutsman explained that she serves on the GIS Policy Committee, and that she feels that this plan both is very fair and also something that needs to be put into place to help Havel and his team manage their time. Stutsman offered laudation to Schultz, Havel, and the GIS Department for taking the lead in offering such valuable services. The value of access to information gained via GIS is becoming increasingly more recognized. The plan to not charge the full rate for services, and yet also acknowledge the demand that this places on the GIS Department, is a good compromise. Sullivan asked were this to be approved next week, if Havel would want it to take effect immediately. Havel said yes. Sullivan noted that the only concern with immediate implementation is that this would not allow for budgeting.
Stutsman said the costs are low enough that it wouldn’t be an incentive for an individual government entity to set up its own GIS program. It is more efficient in terms of time and money to have one department upon which multiple others rely, rather than to have many entities each with their own GIS service. Havel agreed, saying County staff had worked on many cooperative projects and he expected the leveraging of resources to continue. The Board agreed to vote on this rate plan at a future formal meeting.
Sullivan left at 9:58.
Assistant Mental Health/Disability Services Director Jan Shaw said that the Targeted Case Management Advisory Board voted to reappoint Tammy Rowe, and to appoint former Advisory Board member Michael Bowers, to a three year term ending June 30, 2012. The Board agreed to put this item on a future formal agenda.
Shaw said that the Targeted Case Management Advisory Board has been able to continue its contracts with the same pharmacies with which they currently have contracts to provide psychiatric medications to their clients. She reminded the Board of Supervisors that she submitted to them a packet containing graphs illustrating how well the Medication Fund and Patients Assistance Program is working. Since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2009, the Targeted Case Management Advisory Board has served approximately the same number of people as previously, nearly 345. In July of 2008, the Targeted Case Management Advisory Board was spending about $43,000 per month in medications and now, that cost has been lowered to almost $10,000 per month. Even while serving the same number of people, some of these cost savings are the result of clients now taking generic rather than name brand medication. Additionally, Shaw stated their Board has been very aggressive in pursuing Patients Assistance Programs through the pharmaceutical companies who give free medications to patients.
Sullivan returned at 10:00 a.m.
Stutsman asked Shaw whether there is any outreach to other pharmacies to ascertain their interest in contracting with the County. Shaw said she does not believe so, and noted that the Targeted Case Management Board had just contacted some main pharmacies that at that time were already supplying medications. Stutsman said she is glad to see that the pharmacies holding contracts with the County are spread throughout the county. Shaw said there are a couple in North Liberty, Iowa City, and Coralville, so they are not all congregated in one place. The Board agreed to put this item on a future formal agenda.
Medical Examiner Michael Hensch stated that during the FY10 budgeting process, the Board of Supervisors approved an administrative assistant position for the Medical Examiner’s Department and that that position was included in the FY10 budget. Hensch said he worked with the Human Resources Department staff to generate the Medical Secretary job description that is presently before the Board for approval.
Neuzil asked where the temporary work location will be and Hensch said, until the new construction is completed on December 15, 2009, the work site will be the former office of Facilities Director David Kempf. Sullivan asked whether the pay grade that this position ended up grading out at fit in with what Hensch had projected. Hensch responded that the resulting pay grade is actually less than projected. The Board agreed to put this item on a future formal agenda.
County Engineer Greg Parker noted that this project has been dropped from a super-two project to one just to include safety enhancements to Highway 1 north of Iowa City to Solon. One of the two major functions for this agreement will include the relocation of Rapid Creek Road, which will be shifted south of the existing intersection, and it is Parker's understanding that all right-of-way has been acquired by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Parker said that he does not have a construction timeline yet. The second portion of this project will involve Dillon’s Furrow Road, which will be relocated an approximate 200 feet south of its existing intersection. Again, the DOT has acquired the right-of-way and will take care of all construction activities at no cost. However, once the construction project is completed, that road will be the County’s responsibility. Parker stated that it is his understanding that the DOT is going to pave that surface of Rapid Creek Road with asphalt at no cost to the County, and so there may be some work within the County right-of-way. Parker stated that he has been working with Chappell and that Chappell has reviewed it and is satisfied with the language. The Secondary Roads Department recommends putting this on the formal agenda next week.
Harney asked about the location of Dillon’s Furrow Road, whether there is room to move it 200 feet south, and also asked about which end of this road they are referring to. Parker said that Dillon’s Furrow Road will be relocated approximately 200 feet to the south, and that the length of the new construction will be an approximate 200 feet. The old road bed will be obliterated and the new construction will have a cross section with a roadway that is 30 feet wide with a 24 foot granular surface with 3:1 foreslopes and backslopes. Sullivan further questioned whether the north or south end of the horseshoe that is Dillon’s Furrow Road would be shifting. Parker said that the north end of Dillon’s Furrow Road would be moved, and that this would very likely also involve the removal of timber in that area. Stutsman asked if this is an Iowa DOT project and Parker said that this is correct. Parker reminded the Board that because of budget limitations, the project is now limited to safety enhancements.
Stutsman asked about the cost to the County during the construction, if whether it is correct that the County will take over the road once it has been upgraded. Parker explained that the DOT is going to acquire all right-of-way as needed, will do all of the construction at their cost, and when the construction is done, then the road will become the County’s again, just as it is now. Harney asked about the Rapid Creek realignment, noting that when there was originally to be a subdivision, the developer was going to pay for a certain portion of the road to be at a certain level for his development. He also wondered whether this was still a possibility, or if it was now off the table. Parker replied that he suspects that the subdivision project has been put on hold. Parker said the DOT will pave Rapid Creek road from Highway 1 to where it reconnects back to the existing alignment. He said that he has worked with the DOT on this matter, helping to determine that the cost difference between seal coating and putting down asphalt was minimal.
Meyers asked about the small cost differential for paving and seal coating the road after the grading is done, and Parker explained that the basis for this projection comes from details of the project’s bids. The initial plan was to seal coat the road, but the road has to be constructed as though it were paved and, while paving itself is more expensive, they will already have a paving crew working at the construction location. This makes it more cost efficient to allow that crew to stay and pave the road, instead of incurring another mobilization fee as part of bringing a new crew out to seal coat that same surface. Parker concluded by reminding Board members that the details of this plan have been reviewed and approved by Chappell, and that the recommendation is that this project be voted on at next week’s formal meeting. Board members agreed to put this on a future formal agenda.
Parker said that this project and the next project were let last week and that Secondary Roads is matching the cost differential on these projects with Farm-to-Market funds. Parker noted that he did not get the bids until late afternoon on June 22, 2009, and so did not have the time to analyze the numbers. He continued, stating that the cost from the contractor on this project is approximately 10% over the engineer’s estimate. Parker explained that mobilization accounted for the biggest cost differential. Secondary Roads was anticipating an approximate $50,000 for the cost of mobilization. Because Secondary Roads was working with several local construction companies, they thought that mobilization costs would not be as high. The mobilization bids, however, came in at almost $200,000, and so, there was a near $150,000 difference, bringing the department’s estimated cost closer to the engineer’s estimate. Parker reminded the Board of increases in construction costs over the past few years, and noted that he had spoken with members of the Iowa Concrete Paving Association, the DOT, and the staff in his office, and that all concluded that they do not think they would find cost savings by rejecting the current bids and re-bidding with the companies for construction next year.
Parker said that the County received three bids for this project. The low responsible bidder is the local construction firm of Streb Construction, with a bid of $2,303,285.25, and the high bid was Manatt’s Construction from Brooklyn, Iowa, with a bid of $2,846,597.00. The engineer’s cost estimate was just a little over $2,000,000, and so, the outcome of these figures shows a difference of a little over $214,000. Still, he said, the mobilization was the largest part of this cost and is a cost that cannot be easily anticipated. Parker stated that Secondary Roads recommends proceeding with this project by asking for Board approval. The Board agreed to put this item on a future meeting agenda.
Parker identified this as the second project that was let last week. As before, there was a cost differential between what the engineer estimated and the costs projected by the lowest responsible bid. Streb Construction stood again as the low responsible bidder for this project, with a bid of $3,035,037.10, and Metro Pavers, another local company, was the high responsible bidder, with a bid of $3,462,951.94. There were three bidders total. The engineer’s estimate was $2,560,000, and the difference between the low bid and the engineer’s estimate was an approximate $475,000.
Parker said that he had worked closely with the DOT and the Concrete Paving Association to identify any bust in the bid, and determined that there were two items that accounted for it. Mobilization was one. Parker stated that the estimate for mobilization was $80,000, but that the low responsible bidder set this cost at $150,000, accounting for $70,000 of the difference. Parker explained that the second item had an estimated cost of $5/cubic yard, but the actual estimate was closer to $25/cubic yard, and that that made up a difference of $200,000. He noted that when working on a big project such as this, two items can make for sizable differentials. Parker said that even while Secondary Roads was not planning on expending so high an amount, that after conferencing with the Concrete Paving Association, the DOT, and his staff, Parker concluded that re-bidding this project will not bring a cost savings, and probably, the bids would be higher.
Neuzil noted that both Highway 965 and Oak Crest Hill Road are former State roads that have been transferred to County ownership. Neuzil observed that these roads are in such poor condition that they need to be fixed, even if just to get them through another year, and added that he does not see the Board of Supervisors as having much of a choice in this matter. Stutsman added that both of the roads under consideration are very well traveled. Oak Crest Hill Road has a daily traffic count of nearly 1,500 cars. Sullivan said that the north part of Highway 965 gets over 5,000 cars per day traveling at 65 miles per hour.
Neuzil asked the Board to think about the portion of money that is not budgeted for each of these projects: $213,000 for one, plus another $475,000. Neuzil stated that these additional costs will clearly have a huge impact on the next 2 years’ budgets. Stutsman observed that these unexpected costs total almost three quarters of a million dollars, and Meyers confirmed that the combination of these two amounts equals $688,000. Neuzil said that this means that the Board will have to cut back in future projects.
Harney said that he does not see a real problem in this, as there is over a million left of the transfer of jurisdiction dollars. Harney then asked whether Streb Construction has completed work on long distance roads before, whether this kind of project is something new for Streb. Parker replied that to his knowledge, Streb Construction has completed projects of this distance. He noted that he would be surprised if Streb had not bid on the Sand Road project. Harney expressed that he does not question the quality of their work, and Parker responded that Streb Construction is a good company and the DOT recommends them.
Neuzil asked about the timeline for this project, and Parker noted that the requirement for this project is that it be completed before the snow begins to fall this year, in 2009. Neuzil stated that for the 6,500 vehicles that travel these roads, these two projects are desperately ready for upgrading, and Meyers confirmed that these are two of the worst stretches of road in the county. Meyers continued saying that in consideration of stimulus dollars and all of the projects slated for this year and next year, it seems that if the Board chooses to pull this project and re-bid it next year, a lower bid is unlikely. Meyers guessed that it would be three or four years before this would be possible, at which time all of these other projects will have been completed and people will be looking for work again.
Parker said that additional points of consideration from a funding standpoint include that a share of both of the total construction costs for the projects discussed in this meeting is covered by Surface Transportation Program funds, and that these are federal funding dollars. The other portion of the funding is coming from the Farm-to-Market fund. Parker stated that his department is tapping into their Farm-to-Market fund to cover the differential, which means, more than likely, that Secondary Roads will have to go into debt on their Farm-to-Market fund expenditures. Parker reminded the Board that beginning on July 1, 2009, and through December 2009, there is a freeze on any Farm-to-Market expenditures that will go below the zero mark. This means that if any entity does not have the funds to cover a project, then that same entity will not be allowed to let the project.
Parker continued to explain that Secondary Roads will be matching the upcoming stimulus projects with their Farm-to-Market funds, which will further put Secondary Roads into the negative. Parker said that Secondary Roads can expect some money to come back in, but that their Farm-to-Market funds may be frozen until they can get back into the positive dollar amount. With the stimulus projects, Parker stated, certainly everyone is utilizing the same fund sources that are available to Secondary Roads, because that is the only construction fund source that is available to them. He noted that because Secondary Roads has used all of their federal funding, they now have to tap into their Farm-to-Market funds and local construction dollars to cover the local projects that they are trying to complete. These funding issues could have an impact on Secondary Roads in anywhere from one year to 18 months from the present date. He said he would monitor this impact, and keep the Board informed.
Parker also stated that Secondary Roads reviews their Five Year Road Plan annually, but that there is a possibility that they will have to take a closer look at this plan, and that this may impact what their projected construction projects will be in the future. Parker said that his department would continue to design these construction projects out, and that if Secondary Roads has to sit tight for a year, and not do construction, then they will design and shelf those projects, so that when funding becomes available, the department will have multiple projects that are ready to let.
Neuzil asked about the boundaries of this project to confirm that it goes to the Hills corporate city limits, and Parker replied that the portion of Hills that his department is currently negotiating is a part of this project. Parker said that they are close to negotiating an agreement and that they want to complete this negotiation before they have to make a decision as to whether they should proceed with that section or not. Sullivan questioned whether this means that the City of Hills will pay back to Johnson County a small percentage of that total cost. Parker answered yes, saying that the estimate for the City of Hills was just over $250,000. He noted that this amount has to be paid out of Secondary Road's budget first, and that will occur with a three-year payment schedule. Sullivan asked if whether, because the bids came back at 18% over the estimate, this additional cost percentage would be passed on to Hills. Parker stated that 18% is already incorporated into these estimates, since these are the numbers that came in as recently as last Monday. Sometimes costs shift while working in construction. If costs increase or decrease, those shifts will be reflected in the cost designated to the City of Hills. Secondary Roads will only be asking Hills to pay for the actual cost of what was constructed in their corporate city limits area.
Stutsman added, for the public’s information, that both of these roads will remain open for use during the time of this construction. Parker modified this to say that only local traffic will be allowed, but that detours will be constructed at each site since this work will include activities that are likely to slow traffic. He added that passage will be allowed to those who live on these roads. The recommended alternative route for Highway 965 will be to take Interstate 380 to get around the construction, and, for Oak Crest Hill Road, the recommended route will be to take Highway 218, the parallel route just to the west. Stutsman asked whether there will indeed be access to these roads, so retail businesses can remain open to customers. Parker said yes. Neuzil recalled that Secondary Roads had previously made signs during the construction work on Sand Road, to clearly indicate which roads are open to provide access to businesses.
Lyness opened by stating that the Child Support Recovery Unit had a Secretary II leave, and so this is a good time to look at the office needs. The recommendation from those working at the Child Support Recovery Unit is that their office does not really need the secretarial support provided by a Secretary II anymore. This need was previously based on a demand for drafting forms, and similar activities that are now expedited by computer systems and automated processes. The Child Support Recovery Unit now has a need for a Child Support Recovery Officer to conduct investigations. Currently, the Child Support Recovery Unit has two Child Support Recovery Officers, a Secretary II, a Secretary I, and a Clerk I. This proposal would change the Secretary II position into a third Child Support Recovery Officer. Lyness stated that this is also a good time to look at revising and updating the job description for the Child Support Recovery Officer. She explained that she has distributed a draft of a job description to Board members. Lyness continued, noting that even though the Child Support Recovery Officer is a more highly paid position than the Secretary II, the Child Support Recovery Unit will be reimbursed 100% from the Department of Human Services. It will therefore have zero impact on the County’s budget.
Stutsman asked if these staff people are housed in Linn County, and Lyness replied they are. Lyness explained that the only individual that they see from that office regularly is Assistant County Attorney Emily Schaar, who works with cases in Johnson County even though her office is actually located in Cedar Rapids. Stutsman called this a very successful program for the State. Harney asked whether Human Services has agreed to this funding, and whether they have sufficient funding for the aforementioned reimbursement. Lyness noted that Human Services made the original request for this action. The Board agreed to put this item on a future formal agenda.
Stutsman attended a liaison meeting with Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia, the dedication of the playground at the Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse Transitional Housing, a detention meeting that included discussion of the increasing numbers and alternatives proposed, and a Johnson County Council of Governments meeting. Stutsman said that Vicky Robrock was named Iowa Transit Director of the Year and she would like the Board to send Robrock a congratulatory letter. Stutsman attended a Targeted Case Management Board meeting and took part in a Council of Human Services conference call. Stutsman said she and Meyers met with a representative from the Entrepreneurial Development Center who will soon approach the Board for funding. Stutsman said she had a liaison meeting with Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak.
Harney attended a Jail Facilities Subcommittee meeting, the Shueyville City Council Meeting, the Sixth Judicial Department of Corrections Board of Directors meeting, a liaison meeting with SEATS Director Tom Brase, a Local Emergency Planning and Coordinating Committee Meeting, the Iowa City Area Development Board of Directors Meeting, and the Community Foundation Board of Directors Meeting.
Sullivan took part in a meeting at which participants discussed the treatment of individuals with co-occurring disorders, primarily people with mental health and substance abuse problems. Sullivan noted that he also attended several of the PRIDE events that took place during the weekend of June 19-21, 2009. Sullivan reported to the Board that there have been between two and three instances in the past week in which individuals that live near dirt roads have taken it upon themselves to close the roads. These are public roads, and although the individuals may have been well-intentioned, they need to understand that a permit must be obtained in order to close a road. Sullivan noted that members of the community should contact Secondary Roads to allow them to assess and respond to the situation, instead of attempting to take care of such situations themselves.
Meyers attended a liaison meeting with Correia and the Justice Center Facilities Subcommittee meeting. Meyers said that, for the public’s information, he wanted to report that they have received bids for the engineering assessment of Sutliff Bridge and he expects the Board will be awarding that contract soon. Meyers also attended a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.
Neuzil said that he met with Congressman Dave Loebsack, Governor Chet Culver, and Senator Tom Harkin, specifically to discuss flood mitigation and train service. Neuzil reported keeping close contact with the Rebuild Iowa Office, which helps channel the flood mitigation funds into the community. Neuzil attended meetings of the Emergency Management Association and the Iowa Community Empowerment Board. He gave a promotional presentation on Johnson County to the Shriners Club, and attended an event entitled “Real World in the Corridor,” hosted by the Iowa City Area Development Group. Neuzil gave a speech to the Johnson County Historical Society, an address which focused on the flood impact in rural Johnson County, and he emceed the Dam to Downtown event, a scholarship fundraising event for Iowa City Dollars for Scholars. Neuzil said his next Listening Post is scheduled at the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center on Tuesday, June 30, 2009, at 11:00 a.m.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said the next Elected Officials meeting is scheduled on June 29, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. On July 1, 2009, an Informal meeting of the Board of Supervisors for personnel evaluations, and a Site Visit to the Sheriff’s Office, is scheduled at 9:00 a.m., and a Joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors and the Justice Center Coordinating Committee is scheduled at 3:00 p.m. The Board's Formal and Informal meetings are scheduled on June 2, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Johnson said that he and Kempf plan to attend an I-JOBS program meeting in Cedar Rapids on June 29, 2009, and said if others are interested in attending, they should contact him. Johnson announced that a free concert presented by the Silver Swing Band at Kent Park is scheduled on June 19, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
Adjourned at 10:53 a.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary