MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
OCTOBER 21, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Key Issues............................................................................................................................ 1
Recap and Progress Report of Items Discussed at the September Key Issues Meeting 1
Compass Self-Survey for Behavioral Health Services.............................................. 1
Setting of Legislative Priorities.................................................................................. 4
Buy Local Policy.................................................................................................... 14
SEATS Service to Lone Tree.................................................................................. 15
Joint Emergency Communications Center Update.................................................. 16
Events and Holidays Throughout the Year for Calendar Year 2010....................... 20
Food for Employee Recognition............................................................................. 21
Internal Processes, Expectations, and Other Operational Issues of The Board of Supervisors Office 22
Future Meeting Agenda Items................................................................................. 24
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 9:00 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said they discussed the technology needs for Room 203B and 203C of the Health and Human Services Building, and Facilities Manager Dave Kempf indicated that his goal is to address them at the same time that they are working on the Administration Building. They discussed the plan for use of the third floor of the Health and Human Services Building, and the Wellness Committee is meeting over lunch on October 21, 2009 to talk about it. Duties were divided up for the Cosgrove Village Plan. The Board talked about legislative priorities, and Iowa City Chamber of Commerce Vice President and Director of Public Policy Rebecca Neades is here to help them continue that discussion today. They talked about the process for obtaining public input regarding the Sutliff Bridge Project, and they started that on October 19, 2009. Although the survey is ready, it has not yet been posted to the County website due to difficulty with the link. The Board talked about plans for the Economic Development Committee, although Johnson said he is holding off on that for now due to the commencement of Budget Meetings. The funding for the brochure of historic sites was approved. The plans for the Employee Recognition Event are under way, and there is a related item on today’s agenda.
Stutsman said she has been on a Co-occurring Disorders Committee, and a survey has come out of that Committee. She thinks Community Mental Health Center for Mid-Eastern Iowa Consultant Jay Levenson is in a better position to explain the survey and his request for completion of the survey by the Board of Supervisors. Levenson said he is asking for active participation and leadership from the Board. He provided some background regarding initiatives by the Federal and State Government regarding co-occurring disorders. Co-occurring disorders are the most complex cases seen by mental health professionals. The term used to be defined as strictly someone who has both substance abuse and mental health issues. It now includes families that have both mental health and substance abuse issues, even if they do not involve the same individual.
Levenson said by broadening the meaning, there is a focus on the people in the County who use the most resources and the most expensive resources for the longest periods of time. The type of treatment that is being organized under these Federal and State initiatives is evidence-based, supported by research, and practical for use in the real world. Levenson said it involves an important system change across the board. The survey was created by doctors who are State consultants leading the State initiative, and it was designed to begin an audit process to hold agencies and individuals responsible for meeting a set of standards. The benefit of having people complete the survey is that appropriate treatment will reduce costs over time. Solid leadership at the top is what makes a difference in terms of getting community providers on board. There should be a message that they are looking at these issues as they make decisions regarding funding, access, and programs. Levenson said that he is advocating for that unified frame of reference.
Sullivan asked if the survey is for individuals or agencies to complete. Levenson said the survey is also for leadership bodies to complete. Stutsman said policy makers, and Levenson agreed. Sullivan said he is confused as to whom they are gathering data from and what they want the data to show. Levenson said part of it is about data, and that information primarily comes from providers. However, another part involves discussions regarding the impact of these issues at various levels and how the decision-making of policy makers regarding funding and access affects the way that services can be provided.
Sullivan asked if the message is for agencies to address these issues from a co-occurring perspective rather than an individual perspective. The agencies will provide the data and if they have followed the guidelines, they will continue to be funded at the same level. If they have not done it, they may receive less funding. Sullivan asked Levenson if that is what he is saying. Levenson said that is oversimplified. Sullivan said he is just trying to get a general idea of what Lenvenson is requesting. Levenson said it took about five years for the process to go from a self-survey to an actual audit tool to hold agencies accountable for their scores in the state of Arizona. The real initial value of the survey is not in the scores themselves, but in the conversation and issues that arise from it. Sullivan said providers have already stated that they work with individuals with both substance abuse and mental health concerns because the issues are intertwined, and he wonders if the initiative will just be adding a layer of bureaucracy. Levenson said providers are not currently providing the services in an organized and integrated fashion, and the survey and initiatives helps to create a more efficient and effective way to meet the needs of those clients. Stutsman said Levenson has talked about system change and said it is a big task. Levenson agreed.
Stutsman said the Committee involves representatives from MECCA, the Jail Diversion Program, and various Mental Health/Disability Services providers. Levenson said about 30 people from a broad range of agencies attend the meetings. He said providers have initiated this process on their own to a large extent. There is direction coming from the State and Federal Government and as well as from agencies because research has shown that these methods work. Providers want to do what works. Sullivan said he just wants to make sure that they would not be adding busy work for agencies or asking them to prove that co-occurring disorders exist when that is already known. Levenson said providers do know that they exist, but they do not know how to effectively cope with them. Professionals in the mental health field typically do not deal well with people who have addiction concerns and vice versa.
Sullivan asked if this will eventually cost providers money, which will then cost the County money when providers request additional funding. Levenson said the State and Federal Government are providing training money in the initial stages; however, it is hard to know if it could increase program costs in the long run. In Arizona, costs per individual went down over time; however, Iowa has a different system and different variables involved. The person who created the study says this is not about money but rather about changing the way providers think about and work with their clients. Levenson said it is a complex issue that does not lend itself well to simple answers.
County Sheriff Lonnie Pulkrabek said he understands that funding for treatment of substance abuse and mental health issues cannot currently co-mingle and asked how this initiative would affect that. Levenson said it is complex, but it could result in agencies being reimbursed for treatment of both mental health and substance abuse diagnoses. He said mental health agencies currently receive reimbursement only for the diagnosis listed first. Harney asked if that is also the case for chemical dependency treatment providers who see clients with mental health diagnoses. Levenson said they may have more access to mental health dollars due to Federal block grants, but it is a similar system. The Federal and State guidelines through Medicaid and through Federal block grants are basically indicating that every agency that treats individuals in these categories is going to need to be capable of providing integrated dual diagnosis treatment. He thinks in about 10 years the treatment for both types of diagnoses will be paid for, and it won’t matter where the dollars come from. The State is basing this initiative on the principle that there should be no wrong door for people who are trying to get treatment for substance abuse, mental health issues, or both. Individuals who show up at jails, emergency rooms, or homeless shelters should have access to treatment referrals.
Stutsman said the providers were all asked to complete the Compass Survey as part of the Committee. She didn’t realize that she and the other Supervisors were also supposed to complete the survey until Levenson called her to check on them. Levenson said he thought it would be helpful for the Board members to understand what the issues are and what issues the providers are dealing with. He offered to facilitate a discussion concerning how these issues might impact the County at some point in the future, if the Board would like him to do so. Neuzil asked if they should fill them out and turn them into Stutsman or Johnson. Stutsman asked when Levenson would like the surveys returned. Levenson answered that the providers are supposed to turn in their completed surveys by October 26, 2009, but he would accept them later from the Board members. The survey can also be completed by other individuals whom the Board deems appropriate. Stutsman said the next Co-occurring Services Meeting will be October 26, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. in the Conference Room in the Public Health Department’s side of the Health and Human Services Building.
Neuzil asked for direction in completing the survey. Levenson said part of his reasoning for asking the Board members to complete the survey is to increase their awareness of the issues since questions will eventually filter up the line. He said he could come back to facilitate the completion of the survey as a group. Stutsman asked the other Supervisors if they would prefer that option. Sullivan said if they each complete the survey separately, Levenson will probably get four individual, personal opinions. They could complete it together, but Sullivan doesn’t know that it would serve any purpose. They have done that to some degree already by hiring people to implement policies. Levenson said they can complete the survey on their own if they prefer, and he recommended that they consider the questions in very broad terms. They should think about how these issues will come to the Board of Supervisors and which of the agencies they administer have responsibilities in these areas. They should not target an individual program in their answers, but rather consider the goal of creating a welcoming environment to customers. Levenson said if they do not think a particular item in the survey is applicable to them, they can write NA. Neuzil agreed.
Neuzil said they have addressed legislative issues a number of different ways in the past. On the Federal side, they have had participation with the Chamber of Commerce Trip to Washington D.C. and through interaction with individuals from the National Association of Counties (NACo). Staff in the local offices of Federal Representatives have attended meetings with the Board. On the State side, they’ve had Legislators come in to meet with the Board, and the Supervisors have also traveled to meet with them. Neuzil thinks the Board needs to determine their priorities and how to most effectively communicate them with Legislators.
Neades said she looked over the Board’s list of priorities prior to the meeting. She said Neuzil’s introduction provided some clarification because some of the listed priorities are State, some are Federal, and some are both. Neades thinks the Board’s approach is good. She heard from Johnson that the Board would like to have a meeting with local Legislators to discuss priorities, and she thinks that is important because they can guide the Supervisors to the right Committees and people. They can also provide an overview of what they are looking at this year. Neades said it will be a different year at the State House involving a shortened session and budget concerns. There will be cuts that will trickle down, and she thinks the Board should specifically lay out how those cuts will affect different types of funding. She thinks counties will be facing more funding problems than the State.
Stutsman said it may be important to send the message early on that the State should not try to solve their budget problems by pushing them onto the County. The Counties have budget concerns too, and she agrees that this issue should be at the top of their priority list. Neades agreed that it should be communicated now. Neuzil said the Board recently talked about the need to start inventorying what cuts will do to individual budgets, and he thinks that will be just the beginning. They are just now addressing the FY10 issue. Sullivan said a lot of people in the Governor’s Office and in the Legislature are saying Medicaid will not be cut, but the County has 10 departments that receive Medicaid funding and will be affected if it is cut. Neades said Medicaid will be a hard place for the State to make cuts because it impacts so many people and programs. She thinks they will look for more subtle areas to make cuts but agreed that they cannot know for sure.
Neades said she likes the fact that they are having departments consider how they will cut back if they need to because examples will tell their story better than statistics, and they will have those. They will want to convey how the cuts will impact the individuals within the County rather than County Gover nment alone. Neades said there will be other major cuts ahead of them; 10% will not be the only cut. State Legislators will try to protect projects and funding within the State, but it’s going to come down to choices in the end. She thinks Johnson County will be better off the more they work with Linn County. Although Linn County has different issues related to the flood, the combined area makes up the second largest population center in the State and has at least 13 Legislators that represent them.
Neuzil said it will be helpful if Neades identifies the listed priorities that are most realistic and lets the Supervisors know if any of them are initiatives that the Chamber of Commerce has identified. Neades said two priorities that would be appropriate for working with the Chamber of Commerce on are Passenger Rail and earmarks for Trail Funding. She recently returned from an event discussing the Amtrak issue. She said there is about $50 billion worth of projects for about $8 billion of funding. Although that is disheartening, she thinks Iowa has a good chance of obtaining the funding for the Passenger Rail. They did an application jointly with the Illinois DOT that looked really good. The application changed because it needed to be comprehensive for both Illinois and Iowa. Neuzil asked if the increase in funding requested was for only Davenport to Iowa City or for Chicago to Iowa City. Neades said it included the full distance, but does not include Chicago to Dubuque. She said Iowa added depots to the application because Illinois had included depots, and they wanted a cohesive application.
Neades said the application is for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funding, and they are looking at making the decision for passenger rail in December or January. Sullivan said some ARRA funds have been awarded for projects that the localities cannot complete, and that is not what the Federal Government wants to happen. He thinks the local area has an advantage in that regard. Neades said it is also beneficial that $3 million in Iowa State funding was designated for the project during the last legislative session. In addition, Illinois has a significant amount of money they can put towards the project. Neades said the application is for a 100% grant so there doesn’t need to be match money, but that could change knowing that Illinois is willing to spend some money on the project. Neuzil asked if local government would potentially need to make a contribution to the project. Neades said they are currently seeking a 100% grant that would not require any matching funds. The only thing the local government could potentially become responsible for is the depot, but it was included in the application for ARRA Funding.
Pulkrabek said he has read that it is believed the passenger rail would operate in the red, and he wonders who will pay for operational expenses when the State is trying to cut funds. He asked if they will trickle down to local government. Neades said she has asked the same question herself. She said the Iowa City area would have the majority of the ridership due to the University, VA Hospital, and local events. The ridership should offset the Iowa portion of the operational costs; however, Iowa is still looking at a potential operations budget of approximately $1 million per year. Neades said the DOT is well aware of that, and she thinks it would be best to find a funding mechanism to cover the cost. She gave the example of having a quarter of a penny gas tax that is earmarked for operations. Although she doesn’t like additional taxes, all other modes of transportation are subsidized. She gave examples of roads, buses, and air, and said they have to decide whether or not they want this mode of transportation. With automobiles, there are costs associated with the vehicle, insurance, and gas purchases, as well as building and maintaining roads. Neades said she recently paid $28 to park her vehicle in Chicago for six hours. Stutsman asked what the estimated cost of train fare is. Neades replied $42 one way.
Neades said the Board listed the potential priority of having a light rail between Johnson County and Linn County. She said that project continues to be looked at, but there are major infrastructure issues in Cedar Rapids related to the project. Sullivan asked if the Board should drop it from their priority list. Neades said it is not something she foresees happening in the near future due to not qualifying for ARRA funding. It would require either a Congressionally-designated earmark or a State earmark. In addition, the operational expenses would be significantly hirer than for Amtrak due to decreased ridership. Harney asked if it would be wise to keep the project on the horizon and plan for it in case funding does become available. Neades said it never hurts to communicate with Legislators about projects on the horizon in case funding becomes available and to help them plan for future years. Stutsman said she thinks the two projects should be divided because people get confused about them. She thinks it would be easier to explain that the line between Iowa City and Chicago is the immediate project, and the light rail is a potential project for the future. Neuzil said he has backed off on the light rail concept after a meeting in Washington D.C. where Senator Tom Harkin’s Senior Legislative Assistant Richard Bender asked about the amount of bus use between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. Bender said the process usually involves maxing out on busing before a light rail is considered. Neuzil said he is not saying it could not happen at some point, but he agrees with Stutsman that there is confusion in the community regarding the projects.
Sullivan asked if the Board has too many potential priorities on their list. Neades said yes, and she usually chooses one to three priorities. She said she would split up the Federal and State priorities. Stutsman said there are two items on the list that are local and may just require a conversation with Iowa State Senators Joe Bolkcom or Robert Dvorsky. Neades agreed that staffing for VA Hospital and Medical Examiner are the County’s Issues. She is glad that they are on the list because it brought them to her attention, and it is logical for her to have conversations about them. Sullivan said the issue regarding the requirement that the VA Office be open 40 hours per week is frustrating and costs taxpayers money. It is unnecessary because people in Johnson County generally choose to go to the VA Hospital rather than accessing the County Veteran Affairs Office. Stutsman said she thinks there should be flexibility if a County can prove they are providing the services without the mandate. She said that Johnson County should be exempt. Sullivan said there were counties that were doing nothing, which is unacceptable. Although the Legislature did need to address it, they should not have lumped all counties together. Harney said some counties did not have the service at all.
Neades said she thinks the first step is to talk to people from other Iowa Counties that have VA Hospitals, since those Counties should also be lobbying their Legislators. Johnson County will want to build coalitions with them and make sure there are people around the State having the same discussion. Neades thinks the Board states their argument for exemption pretty clearly. The next step is to communicate with her and the Legislators regarding those discussions. Stutsman asked Johnson to follow up with Polk and Marion Counties. Johnson agreed.
Neades asked if there is anything she should know about the Medical Examiner costs. Stutsman said that issue solely involves Johnson County. Neuzil explained that air care service is provided outside the State by the University of Iowa. As a result, a number of individuals who live out of state are declared deceased within Johnson County. The County then becomes responsible for autopsy services despite the accident or issue occurring outside the State. While Johnson County is normally reimbursed for autopsy services provided for residents of other counties within the State of Iowa, they do not receive reimbursement for individuals from out of state. Stutsman said there needs to be legislation allowing them to ask for funding. She stated that people not only come to the County due to trauma, but also to receive cancer treatment and other types of medical care.
Harney said the issue is not limited to air care, it also involves ambulatory people. Harney said they can not bill back to another state unless they have some type of reciprocity. He said Medical Examiner Administrator Mike Hensch sends a bill, but they won’t respond to it because there is no legislation stating they have to pay for it. Stutsman said Corrections is picking up the cost of the Iowa Medical & Classification Center’s Hospice Program. Neuzil said up to about two years ago, if a death occurred at the Iowa Medical & Classification Center, the County picked up the death certificate. Sullivan said every prisoner in the State who was near end of life was transferred to Johnson County. Neuzil said that problem has been corrected.
Sullivan said the issue does not just involve the University of Iowa; the VA Hospital also serves Southern Wisconsin, Western Illinois, and Northern Missouri. Neades said they obviously communicated this with the Legislators since it changed. Stutsman said she is nervous with cutbacks, and thinks it should be monitored to ensure it doesn’t change. Neades asked about the cost. Neuzil said they would get that information from Hensch. Johnson said he thinks an autopsy is about $1,800, but he is not sure about the cost of the death certificate. Stutsman agreed. Neuzil said this is also an issue for Polk County that does some services for Northern Missouri. Sullivan said it is worse for Johnson County due to its closer proximity to other states.
Neades said she would like to discuss the issue of earmarked funds for trails projects. She said there is a challenge because there is some trails funding that goes through the Iowa DOT, and there is also some that goes through the DNR. There have been some earmarks specifically for Polk County on the funding that goes through the DOT. Two things that work in Polk County’s favor are that they are the largest population center, and they have many different cities that participate. There is a lot of city participation to leverage some of that money, but that starts at the Committee level at the State House. That is where Johnson County needs to lobby their trail projects. Neades said Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Assistant Transportation Planner Kristopher Ackerson is interested in meeting with Johnson County, the City of Iowa City, the City of Coralville, and the Chamber of Commerce to discuss an approach to this issue. Neades and Ackerson have also discussed working with Cedar Rapids on it, however, their needs are so different right now that Neades is not sure where they will be with their trail funding. They also talked about the trail out to Kent Park and the fact that half of the land has already been purchased. Neades sees the question of right-of-way of the land as a stumbling block between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids in regards to the trail. Neuzil asked if she is referring to the section between Solon and Ely and said he thinks that issue is getting worked out. Sullivan agreed.
Neuzil said the frustration is that there is a designated pool of dollars that should be competitively accessed, but Polk County has taken that pool and received specific earmarks, which reduced the amount of money. Neuzil said they have been trying to tell Iowa Legislators that if there is going to be an earmarked system, then they need to get in the game. If there is not going to be an earmarked system, then don’t let anyone receive earmarks and have a competitive way of having the DOT determine priorities through grant applications. Sullivan expressed frustration that Iowa State Senator Matt McCoy obtains the funding for the Principal River Walk, and people from Principal give a significant amount of money to McCoy’s campaign. Neuzil said they would prefer that there is a competitive process because Johnson County normally comes very close, and they would receive the money if it was there. It has not been there because a significant portion has been earmarked for a Polk County project. Stutsman said it happens year after year after year. Sullivan agreed that it has occurred for at least three years. Neuzil said the Legislators are allowing it to happen. Neades said the process would be to go through the Committees and try to get their own earmarks there. They can also lobby their Legislators to correct the issue by making it all or nothing.
Neades asked about the Decat funding. Stutsman said she thinks it needs to change from local control, but that is not going to change. It is probably the funding that is going to go down. Neuzil agreed and asked if they remember when they were receiving Decat funding a few years ago but thought it would be eliminated. However, it kind of got revived, and he does not know if it will now be raided with the upcoming cuts. Stutsman said she thinks it will. Sullivan said he wonders if they should take it off their priority list if they have to remove some things from their list. Stutsman agreed. Neades suggested that the Supervisors do not give the State ideas by mentioning specific things that they think will be raided.
Stutsman said she thinks the listed priority of working for resources to support MH/DS should be listed under priority number two. If Medicare funding is cut, the County will need to fund clients that are listed as eligible. They have discussed the potential solution of being allowed the capacity to go over the cap or to set their own levy. However, she doesn’t know if that would be supported by the Legislature. Neuzil said he thinks they would see a significant tax increase as a result. Neuzil said one of his concerns has to do with discussions regarding the State taking over mental health services due to thinking they can provide them for less expense. They would be taking County employees and turning them into State employees. Harney said he thought that discussion ended recently due to funding issues. Neuzil said that could be the case, but he thinks there are steps being taken to get each County under one computer system. He thinks the State is setting it up so they can eventually take it over. Stutsman agreed but said the steps are incremental. Neuzil said he does not think it is a good idea for the State to take over mental health services. Stutsman agreed that there should continue to be local control. Sullivan said he doesn’t think they have full faith that the services will be provided well by the State. Previous County programs that were taken over by the state are not run as well as they were previously.
Sullivan said he thinks the State’s role should involve setting a floor of what must be done, but they actually set a ceiling and effectively say that governments should not achieve more than a certain level of service. Johnson County should have the ability to provide better services for their residents if they choose. Stutsman said that can cause problems by turning Johnson County into a magnet county. Although she cannot blame people for wanting to move here because there is a tremendous array of services available, it increases the County’s costs. They have no additional revenues to pick those up due to the State pulling back. Sullivan does not think the State should encourage them to be mediocre and thinks the issue especially affects schools. Stutsman said they also need to be concerned about fund balances. Johnson County does a really good job of managing their mental health funds and has a fund balance. Unfortunately, the Legislature penalizes people who manage well and sees balances as money they can access. Stutsman asked why they should have to turn over their money because they have done a better job of managing than some other counties.
Neades said she understands, but it is not going to change because there is no incentive for the State to change it. The conversation has changed a lot in recent months since the Revenue Estimating Committee gave the State their most recent numbers. She thinks it will be difficult to do almost anything this year. Stutsman agreed. Neuzil said he heard the State Legislature may have only a 70 day session. Neades said they are saying 80 days. Although they discuss having a shorter session each year, she can’t imagine it will be very long this year because they don’t have the funds to do anything. Neuzil said it will sell better for them to have a shorter session because they won’t have to spend as much on staff. Neades agreed, and said the Board will have to decide if this is their number two priority or not.
Neuzil said the Emergency 911 funding priority has to do with creating a fair formula for distributing the cell phone surtax. More people are using cell phones than land line phones, and the County receives money from land lines but not from cell phones. Harney said the County does receive some money from cell phones, but the State takes most of those funds. Pulkrabek said he thinks they can expect the State to take those revenues this year because they need them. Neuzil said the result will be that the local property tax for that service will increase. The request from the 911 Board will go up unless the State changes the formula. Neades said she is glad that the Board is identifying these issues now, even if it is not a good year. The economy will turn around, and there will be opportunities in the future. She agreed with Pulkrabek, and said the State is not going to raid their own pocket. Neuzil said Linn County is talking about a referendum to increase the phone surtax. Pulkrabek said that is only for the land line phones. Neuzil agreed. Pulkrabek said the State is the ultimate controller of the E911 funds and can control where that money goes; however, the County is the controller of the land line surcharges. Neuzil said that a referendum is an option Johnson County hasn’t talked about. Harney said the chances of getting it passed are low. Neuzil said he does not see it as more important than another bond issue coming up.
Pulkrabek said the money is generally used for equipment for 911 centers. Johnson County has a new one opening, but they will also have more 911 calls to handle due to State cuts. He has heard that there may be a decrease in state troopers assigned to Johnson County from five to eight to two. When Pulkrabek worked patrol 10 years ago, he said there was a point when there were 14 or 15 state troopers. He asked if the County is prepared to have a dispatcher tell someone in need of help that there is no one available. Neuzil said Pulkrabek’s request for additional County patrol officers does not even take the potential reduction in state troopers into account. Pulkrabek agreed.
Stutsman asked if Neades suggests they take all priorities off the list that would involve requests for funding. Neades said they will have to be very careful about asking for too much. They can ask for funding, but she would choose only their number one priority for funding. Asking for more funding will not help to build relationships with their Legislators when the funding is not available. It puts the Legislators in a bad spot because they can’t do anything, and it’s not going to happen. She would choose one or two projects that require funding, at most. Neades said they previously talked about unfunded mandates and thinks allowing counties additional means of raising revenue is a good idea. Neuzil there was a piece of legislature this past year that tried to allow infrastructure of courthouses to be an essential county purpose. It was being pushed by the judicial system and did not involve a significant amount of money. Neuzil thinks being able to use the General Supplemental Fund for courthouse improvements would be of interest to Johnson County. Harney said he has considered a potential change that would allow counties to initiate a sales tax referendum without having to have it passed by the cities. It would involve a small change in the law to allow counties to do that.
Stutsman said she wants to mention to the Board that she is wondering what they will say to the Legislature concerning being allowed additional means of raising revenue for public purpose since the Board has not chosen to use new, bonding-related legislation for the proposed Shueyville Road Project. She thinks they need to further consider that because the State may wonder why they want additional legislation when they are not using the recent legislation. Neuzil said he thinks part of that legislation was related to Counties who have maxed out on all of their rural funds. Sullivan agreed. Neuzil said he agrees with Stutsman, however, that they have been given some opportunities. Sullivan said he doesn’t think the revenue issue is a huge concern for them right now. Sullivan said he would prefer that the State just doesn’t take things away from them. Stutsman agreed.
Neuzil said County Treasurer Tom Kriz brought up an issue concerning tax credits that would significantly impact all local governments.. For FY10 the State has said it will pick up all of the tax credits that it promised. Neuzil said the State also made that promise in 2003 or 2004 and subsequently told local governments that they would not fund them. If that occurred again, $302,000 is the estimated unfunded amount that would have to be divided up among Johnson County, the cities, and the schools. They will want to make sure that the State does not raid that fund in FY10. If they are considering doing so in FY11, they should ask the State to let them know now so the money is taken from property taxpayers rather than the local government. Harney said he thinks Kriz said the State is going to take the money now. Neuzil said Kriz is questioning whether or not they will. Sullivan said the County’s share of the $302,000 would be about $60,000 for the current year. Neades said the information is good for her to know and should be brought to the legislators’ attention immediately. She suggested they communicate about it to both Senator Bolkcom and Senator Dvorsky so they are on the same page.
Neuzil said the question the Board has on the Federal side is in regard to the Chamber Trip. They currently send the Board Chairperson and the incoming Chairperson on the trip. They have a continuing frustration regarding not being included in presentations regarding projects. The City of Iowa City, City of Coralville, and City of North Liberty team up for projects that involve Johnson County, and the Board would like to be a part of the team. Neades asked if the Board has thought about specific projects that Johnson County would like to take to the Chamber Trip. She said Johnson County can easily be included as a supporter and leader in discussions and at the table for other projects, but she is wondering about the County’s projects.
Neuzil said the Mehaffey Bridge Project and the continuation of a trail system from Iowa City to Cedar Rapids are the two that seem to have some interest. They discussed last year that part of the trail will require passing through the Corps of Engineer’s property, and the Board would probably need to ask the Trails Committee to provide them with some more information on that. Neuzil said the third issue that he thinks requires more discussion with their Federal Legislators relates to the General Services Administration property. It seems like the Legislators have been asking how they can help. Sullivan said it would be nice to have the local business community and municipalities asking for cooperation as well.
Harney said the County has applied for stimulus dollars for the Mehaffey Bridge Project. He thinks they really need to push that. Neuzil said he is wondering if it is wise to start asking for funding for a large bridge project. Neades asked if it is engineered and planned out. Neuzil said yes, it is ready to go. Neades asked if they are referring to Mehaffey Bridge. The Board members said yes. Neades said they definitely need to start now.
Sullivan said the nice thing about the Trails Project is that they would potentially be asking for some right-of-way rather than money. It would improve the Corps of Engineer’s property as well. With the GSA property, they are asking for permission rather than money. Two of their three priorities involve cooperation rather than Federal money. Harney said the issue complicating the acquisition of the GSA property is that the GSA wants to receive the full value of the property, and he thinks the current appraisal is over $3.5 million. He said County Attorney Janet Lyness is working on a letter to the GSA. Neades said she thinks both of the issues are agency issues for which Legislators can help make connections, but they do not have any related authority. Sullivan said it would give the Legislators a chance to do something beneficial for the people back home without spending money. Neades agreed and said it is something the Legislators can be working on now. She would like to see a lot of movement on these issues now, and then they can ask the Legislators where they are at with them in February.
Neuzil asked what Neades recommends the Board has before the Chamber starts their brainstorming meetings in December. Neades said they need a position paper, to know what their top three priorities are, and to make connections regarding the GSA property and the Trails Project. The position paper can be changed later on, but it is important to have one soon to start obtaining feedback. She offered to give Johnson further direction regarding who to talk to about the GSA property and the Trails Project. Neuzil said they can coordinate that and would like to be a part of projects involving Johnson County. Neades said she would love it if they would and suggested they have a meeting to further discuss it. Neuzil said the Board has another Key Issues Meeting scheduled for November 25, 2009 and said they could potentially do a recap at that time.
Johnson said he has not received a response back on what Linn County’s plans are with area Legislators. It is on the agenda for the Public Leadership Group Meeting next week, although he will not be able to attend due to a conflicting meeting. He said the Board members could obtain more clarification. Stutsman agreed and suggested they have a list of issues that involve both Johnson and Linn Counties. They could leave out issues that are specific to Johnson County. Sullivan asked if they want to share those with people in Linn County and get those Legislators involved. Johnson said it sounded like the plan was to separate the local issues from the Federal issues. Sullivan asked Johnson if he feels like he has received some direction. Johnson said he thinks that he has some direction, but he is wondering if the Board knows what their top two priorities are. Stutsman said she thinks unfunded mandates would be the top priority. Sullivan agreed. Stutsman asked if the earmarked funds for trails would be the next priority since the Iowa State Association of Counties (ISAC) is working so much on the DHS funding issue. Johnson asked if unfunded mandates and addressing the process for earmarked funds for trails are the top two priorities for discussion with Linn County. Neuzil, Stutsman, and Sullivan agreed. Harney said he thinks if they are serious about the Passenger Rail, they need to be talking about that to the Legislators as well. That is a larger commitment than some of the other things. Stutsman asked if the project is more of a Federal issue. Neuzil said it sounded like it is all Federal. Harney said they still want the Legislators behind it. Stutsman said she thinks a number of the things on the current list should continue to be included, but that the previously mentioned top two priorities are the things they want to work on together with the Linn County Supervisors. They are talking about bringing issues up for public leadership. Neuzil said he is sure Linn County would have some interest in the E911 Funding, but they could bring up the Passenger Rail.
Harney said records retention is also a big issue for everyone. Neuzil said they have two issues to bring up and asked if there is a third issue they want to bring up at the meeting with Linn County. Johnson said he thinks they can take the list and rearrange it depending on the purpose. There can be one list for working with Linn County and another list of the Board’s priorities. Sullivan said there would be a Federal list, a State list, and a list to work with Linn County. Stutsman added that there is a Johnson County-specific list. She doesn’t see anything wrong with having two things to discuss with Linn County. Sullivan agreed and said it may keep them more focused. Neuzil said Linn County may also have something that the Board is not considering.
Sullivan said they will need to have something that they can actually hand to Legislators at some point. They will need to decide what to include on it, how much detail to include, and how long it should be. Johnson said he has heard that several people were impressed with what Linn County had last year and would like to see it. Stutsman asked if Johnson has not heard from Linn County Board of Supervisor’s Executive Assistant. Johnson said no. Neuzil said Linn County had a packet of positions rather than simply a list. There was basically a page regarding each position.
Neuzil said they have gone through the process of agreeing that they want a Buy Local Policy and creating one; however, it has not been voted on. Johnson said he has some information from County Engineer Greg Parker regarding the last vote on that. Neuzil asked if the other Supervisors are comfortable with putting it on a future Formal Meeting agenda for an official vote. Sullivan said he thinks he knows what some of Parker’s objections are and is not sure that he necessarily agrees with them, however, he wonders if the Board wants to hear them now. Stutsman said she is interested in hearing what Parker has to say.
Johnson said he took several phone calls from individuals at Vogel Traffic Services. They said they had been informed that they had the low quote so they were confused about the change in direction. Johnson said Parker indicated that buying local should be defined. L.L. Pelling Company is owned 51% by a company based out of Brooklyn. The paint was bought in Missouri. Vogel is a 100% Iowa company with stores in Johnson County. Sullivan said buying local is defined in the policy. Johnson agreed and said Parker said his employees had some reaction since they are cutting costs and looking at budgets. Someone said that is about two miles of gravel. Johnson said the policy is similar to Coralville’s policy so he wonders if they have experience with quoters who drop out of the process. Johnson said those were the concerns.
Stutsman said this is a policy, but that doesn’t mean it always has to be followed. She thinks there are things that do need to be taken into consideration. Harney said there is some information they didn’t have when they made the decision. Neuzil asked if the Buy Local Policy should be placed on the Informal Meeting agenda or the Formal Meeting agenda. Stutsman said she doesn’t have a problem approving the policy but thinks they do need to take these things into consideration when they approve a contract. Sullivan said he does not understand the argument that it is two more miles of gravel because they are spending the same amount of money but buying a little bit less paint. The dollar figure does not change. Harney said it concerns him that they could have bought the paint locally. Sullivan said the employees live and work here, and Vogel Traffic Service’s crew does not.
Sullivan thinks people at the company were mad because they were informed to mobilize their crew, which should not have happened until the Board had voted. Stutsman said it was based on information Secondary Roads had at the time because the Board had always chosen the low bid in the past. Sullivan thinks part of the problem is that department heads have not all bought into the idea, despite discussions. Some don’t think the Board is serious. Stutsman said she doesn’t think it’s a black and white policy, and there will additional considerations in the future. Neuzil asked if they are planning to put the Buy Local Policy issue on next week’s Formal Meeting agenda for Board adoption.
Johnson said his understanding is that Former Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan was going to pass the draft policy by the County Attorney. Neuzil said he thinks they should put the item on the Informal Meeting agenda and make sure it has been reviewed by the County Attorney. He thinks it has been reviewed but wants to make sure. Sullivan said he thinks the previous County Attorney reviewed it. Stutsman asked if Harney wants to have additional discussion regarding the adoption of the policy. Harney said he thinks there should be an opportunity to discuss it publicly and for Parker to express his opinions. He thinks there is a huge difference between putting out a bid and putting out a quote. If it is an official bid, the lowest bid has to be accepted.
Johnson asked if it should be placed on the Informal Meeting agenda for next week. Neuzil said he doesn’t think it is necessary, but other Supervisors may want to have a discussion with Parker and other interested individuals. Sullivan and Stutsman said they are ready to vote on the issue. Neuzil said the majority of the Board wants to put it on the Formal Meeting agenda for a vote. Neuzil said the policy is not an ordinance but for the purpose of guidance.
SEATs Director Tom Brase said he supported the $2.00 fare in the rural parts of the County, but now an issue has come up. Solon has not had riders to the meal site in the last three to four months, and Lone Tree has had two individuals who regularly went. Those individuals have decided to stop riding because the City has not compensated for the other part of the rural $2.00 fare. Those individuals are paying a $1.00 fare to the meal site and $1.00 back. Both individuals are being picked up at one location, and they pay $4.00 for a $3.00 meal. As a result, they have decided to drive themselves, and there are basically no riders in Lone Tree at this point. There may be meal deliveries in that area in the winter, but that does not produce a lot of revenue, although it is a great service provided by the County. When there is bad weather, people may choose to have meals delivered rather than obtaining rides to the meal site. He finds that discouraging because of the service they are providing. Brase said he spoke to the mother and son who were previously mentioned and determined that they live within a mile of the meal site and were being picked up at the same location. The City pays for the extra service, but they could not afford this part. SEATs gets paid for each rider that goes to the meal site, and they are already in the area for meal deliveries.
Brase said he would like it written into the next 28E agreement that individuals being picked up from the same location are charged a lesser fare. He said he does have to charge a fare to receive funding from the East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG). If individuals are going to the meal site and are within a mile radius of it, Brase would like to charge them each $1.50 instead of $2.00. Neuzil asked if the County receives a reimbursement of $0.50 on that. Brase said Solon reimburses $1.50 per trip, and Lone Tree reimburses $1.00 for each way. Neuzil asked if they can say their fare is $2.00 unless it is supplemented by another entity and asked if that is what Brase is asking for. Brase said they already get that supplement to a point. He is asking that each individual only be charged $0.50, while the City supplements $1.00. It is an addition to the cost, and he wants to make sure he is doing it right.
Neuzil asked if the SEATs Advisory Board has discussed the issue. Brase said no, although he can bring it up with them and see what they suggest. He wanted to make sure the Board is aware of the issue first. Stutsman said she doesn’t have a problem with Brase writing an addendum to the contract and thinks he has justified why there should be an exception. Harney asked what would happen if several individuals living in the same apartment complex are being picked up at the same location. Brase said they would need to have the same address to qualify for the reduced rate. If they knew the system and wanted to go around it, they probably could. Stutsman said the idea is that SEATS is stopping at the location anyway so it may not matter if they are picking up two people or a dozen. Brase agreed. Sullivan said if government is going to be run like a business, they would think in terms of what else they can do while they are already there. Stutsman said part of the reason for the meal sites is to provide an opportunity for socialization. She doesn’t mind a little subsidization to encourage people to go out. Harney said he is just wondering how to justify Solon paying an extra $1.00 and Lone Tree not paying it. Brase said that Solon chose to pay the extra $1.00. Harney said that Lone Tree chose not to. Brase agreed but said Lone Tree agreed to provide an extra day of service and pay SEATS for it. Solon decided not to do that and created a volunteer program instead. It’s a choice they have.
Harney asked if Brase is essentially asking for the same rate that the riders in the City of Lone Tree pay. Brase said no because Lone Tree is still subsidizing for these people even though they are just outside the City limits. That is why he is looking at the one mile radius, and it involves going to the meal site. Sullivan said he would like to see Brase do what he can to make the service as viable as possible in Lone Tree, as long as he is not breaking any rules. Neuzil asked if Brase would need the Board to vote to make a change. Brase said he would need to put an addendum in the contract and to ensure it is acceptable. Harney said Brase raised the issue at a liaison meeting and felt it was best for the full Board to make the decision. Neuzil said they can certainly try it and change it if necessary. He asked Brase to let him know if the Board needs to make an official vote on the contract amendment.
Pulkrabek said the latest update a couple of weeks ago regarding the change in timeline has now gone away. It now appears that the dispatchers from both dispatch centers will move to the Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) to begin operations on July 1, 2010. They have to operate on both old phone systems, although it will be done by phone lines. This is due to the impossibility of transitioning to the new system within a month due to the required installations and training. Pulkrabek said the technology allowing two Deputy Sheriffs to communicate will be up and running, however.
Pulkrabek said he did budget for two months for the current Dispatch Center as an insurance policy because the consultants and engineers cannot guarantee that the dispatchers will be moved out to the JECC Building by July 1, 2010. He said there was a huge software malfunction in another state that must be worked out by the consultants before the JECC equipment can be installed. That is a minor delay. There has been another minor delay involving the installation of the City of Iowa City’s tower on the East side near Scott Park. Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey has tried to facilitate the process by contacting Iowa City Planning and Community Development Director Jeff Davidson. The towers and infrastructure out in the County are very close to completion, however. The towers are up at a couple of sites and only require installation of microwave dishes and similar items.
Sullivan said he assumes the current dispatchers are going to have to apply for jobs with a new employer. Pulkrabek said that is not the approach they have taken. The plan is for all dispatchers to continue their employment with JECC, and they have said all along that they don’t foresee a new application process. Pulkrabek does recommend that there is a new probationary period for all of the dispatchers, however. The transfer of seniority and benefits will also require further discussion. Sullivan said his point is that it has not been done yet and asked what will happen if the dispatchers do not agree with the new terms. He asked who will pay the dispatchers if no agreement has been reached by September 1, 2009 and they are still considered County and City employees. Pulkrabek said that would be an interesting dilemma. He thinks JECC Executive Director Mike Sullivan is planning for training for the dispatchers to occur around February, March, or April 2010. His understanding is that the dispatch positions at the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office will be eliminated as of July 1, 2010. The dispatchers know they will have to open up some new bargaining issues, and he thinks they are working on deciding whether or not they will be represented by unions. He asked if that is what Sullivan is addressing.
Harney said the dispatchers have to be JECC employees to be paid out of that fund so they have to be under the direction of the JECC when they move out there. The issue right now is the provision of human resource and payroll services. M. Sullivan has asked two private companies to give them actual costs of providing those services. If those numbers come in high, M. Sullivan will again try to get Johnson County or the City of Iowa City to provide the services. That will take time. Pulkrabek said a setback involved the contact person at a local company leaving his position there. M. Sullivan had to start over with a new contact person at the same company.
Sullivan said he doesn’t see where Iowa City or Johnson County would have any choice but to continue employing the dispatchers if an agreement has not been reached by July 1, 2010. Harney said M. Sullivan is hoping to have everything ready to present within about a month. Neuzil said he wants an understanding that the Board needs to know when the dispatchers have begun providing services as a collective entity. Once the dispatchers are together under one roof, he is okay with that. However, he is uncomfortable of the idea of dispatchers being put under one roof while City dispatchers provide City services and County dispatchers provide County services. Pulkrabek said he doesn’t think that will be the case. The training in March and April will not necessarily be exclusively regarding the new system. The dispatchers will be trained to work in all chairs. Someone who was formerly a Johnson County dispatcher will be cross-trained to deal with all issues, whether County or City-related. All calls will come in under one roof and be handled under one roof.
Neuzil said he understands there will be a transition period, and he thinks funding for JECC is fine as long as the dispatchers are in the new building and operating under JECC as of July 1, 2010. Neuzil said there is concern with what will happen with the money allocated under FY10 for those employees. They double budgeted, and he doesn’t want the money just sitting out there. Pulkrabek said the message has been clear that the dispatchers will be employees of JECC and paid by JECC when they move into that facility. Neuzil asked if there is any chance that it will occur prior to July 1, 2010. Pulkrabek said no.
Pulkrabek said the County and the City of Iowa City may have to absorb the cost of the upcoming training for dispatchers. Neuzil said that is what he is getting at. These employees are going to have to start learning about the new building prior to moving in on July 1, 2010. Stutsman asked if Pulkrabek is referring to the cost of overtime for training. Pulkrabek said yes and thinks the Sheriff’s Office and the City of Iowa City Police Department will have to absorb it. They cannot leave dispatch seats empty while they receive training so it will result in overtime.
Pulkrabek said another issue is that the JECC Policy Board needs to decide what to do with extra funding that was previously allocated for staff salaries. He stated at the last Policy Board Meeting that he feels it should go towards debt reduction rather than sit unused. He doesn’t know how the rest of the Policy Board feels about the issue, and it wasn’t on the agenda for that meeting. However, it will come up in the future, and he will push for it to be used towards debt reduction. Stutsman said she supports that. Neuzil said he is not sure if the money can be used for debt reduction without being penalized. It is an issue that Kriz and Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne need to be updated on. Sullivan said the question is whether or not they can pay the debt off early without being penalized. Stutsman said she sometimes thinks it is better to take the penalty. Pulkrabek said he doesn’t want to be penalized for paying off the debt early. However, if they can pay it off early, they should because it is the responsible thing to do. Sullivan said there was a need to get national assistance due to a lack of local bidders. Neuzil said the issue needs to be discussed. He does not like policy boards to have significant amounts of money sitting unused. Stutsman agreed, and asked why some of the money could not be used to reimburse the Sheriff’s Department for the training. Pulkrabek said they did discuss whether or not they will be able to do so, and he thinks it will be further analyzed. He said if the money did come back to the County, it would go back to the General Fund rather than to the Sheriff’s Department. Neuzil said these are issues to discuss further at future meetings.
Pulkrabek asked how they can find out more information regarding the debt reduction issue. Harney said they could ask the attorney for JECC. Stutsman suggested that Kriz be consulted first since he may be able to answer the question and would not charge a fee. Harney agreed and said that makes sense because Kriz filed the bonds. Neuzil said another potential option regarding the money would be for JECC to have less of a levy next year. Pulkrabek said they previously discussed trying to keep the levy steady and avoiding fluctuations. Neuzil said it may be possible to do it over a five-year period.
Neuzil said he has a hard time imagining that the same amount of dispatchers will be needed at JECC as are presently needed to staff both of the current dispatch centers. He thinks some form of efficiency must be created in the process, and the Policy Board should be considering that as well. He can’t imagine that there won’t be certain times of day that require fewer dispatchers. Pulkrabek said it is a complicated issue because staffing for emergencies involves consideration of worst-case scenarios. In addition, other types of work are completed during the slower times of day. He gave the example of warrant entries, which is a current duty of the Sheriff’s Department that will transfer to JECC. Neuzil said he is not saying that they should not ensure there is adequate staffing, but he cannot believe there will not be some form of efficiency created. Harney said he thinks there will be, and they will work on it under normal working conditions. Neuzil said he thinks this is the time to create that kind of efficiency. Pulkrabek said they are working on the staffing plans. However, they are hoping to create one adequately staffed dispatch center from the two current dispatch centers that may not be adequately staffed.
Neuzil asked if it is necessary to have as many supervisors at JECC as there are currently between the two entities. Pulkrabek said he understands what Neuzil is saying. He said he objected to the suggestion of having a training officer at JECC, and he is watching to ensure that unnecessarily layers of employment are not created. Harney said they are all considering that issue, but people do need to be designated to be in charge. Neuzil said he just wanted to bring the issue up. Efficiency does not necessarily involve the number of employees but rather how things are managed. Stutsman agreed. Pulkrabek said he understands.
Sullivan said the Executive Director and Assistant Technology positions did not previously exist. Two layers have already been added. Harney disagreed and said City and County employees were previously providing technical assistance to the two dispatch centers. Sullivan said they added two full-time managerial people who were not there before. Harney said that is what happens when a business is started. Sullivan said the old employees do not go away. Harney said they do because those people who previously provided technical assistance will not be employed by JECC. Sullivan said they will continue to be employed by the County and City and may have fewer duties. Pulkrabek said they are able to keep the County employee quite busy, but he understands the point being made. Sullivan said it needs to be acknowledged.
Harney said he wanted to mention that the next Policy Board Meeting was rescheduled to a date and time that conflicts with a Johnson County Board Meeting. He said he expressed his concerns at the last Policy Board Meeting, but the date and time was not change. Stutsman asked why the meeting was rescheduled. Harney said they needed more time to obtain some specific information before the next meeting. Sullivan said Harney should say it is unacceptable when Johnson County has three of the seven votes. Stutsman asked if the Board should write a letter stating they would respect the schedules of other elected officials regarding their public meetings and expect the same in return. Neuzil asked how Harney would like to handle the issue. Harney said he doesn’t think the rescheduled meeting can be changed now. Stutsman said she doesn’t want it to happen again and thinks the Supervisors should express their disapproval. Pulkrabek suggested that Harney attend the first half hour of the Policy Board Meeting and address the issue. Sullivan asked if Johnson should write a letter expressing the Board’s disapproval and have it sent to the JECC Board. Stutsman said she would like it to convey that this is unacceptable and is not to happen again. Neuzil said formal approval of the letter could be added to the agenda for the Budget Work Session scheduled for October 26, 2009 for the Chairperson to sign. The Board agreed and discussed the potential implications of future meetings being scheduled for times when certain members are unable to attend due to regularly scheduled meetings.
Johnson said this item is on the agenda to start discussion prior to the Organizational Meeting. Neuzil asked if the Organizational Meeting would take place on January 4, 2010. Johnson said yes and said Secretary II Jo Hogarty made suggestions based on past practice and how the dates fall during the upcoming calendar year. Neuzil said they have generally been holding meetings at least once per week. Johnson asked if there was also a meeting during spring break. Neuzil said yes, but they kept it light. Stutsman thinks the meeting should be held on Thursday during the week of spring break.
Stutsman asked if the Board would meet on December 21, 2009 if December 23, 2009 is designated a holiday in 2010. She asked if December 24, 2009 would also be designated a holiday. Sullivan said there are always two County Holidays around Christmas; one is December 25, 2009 and the other one is chosen yearly. Harney said December 25, 2009 falls on a Saturday in 2010 so December 24, 2009 will automatically be designated a holiday. They have a choice as to whether to designate December 23, 2009 or December 27, 2009 as the second holiday. Harney said Kriz generally prefers that employees are working on Mondays. Sullivan said there is an Elected Officials Meeting on October 27, 2009, and he wonders if it should be put on the agenda to see if there are strong opinions about it. Neuzil agreed.
Stutsman said they are here to serve the public, and they need to consider when the public will want to get some work done. Neuzil said people will probably want to do work on Monday rather than Thursday. Sullivan agreed and said people are generally busier before Christmas than after. Neuzil asked Johnson to add the issue to the Elected Officials Meeting agenda. Neuzil asked Johnson to try not to schedule Informal Board Meetings for those rare Tuesdays when Formal Board Meetings are scheduled due to Thursday holidays. Sullivan suggested giving Video Center Videographer Andy Small a copy of the schedule changes for 2010 as early as possible. Johnson agreed.
Johnson said the cost for food for the last year’s Employee Recognition Ceremony was $615.00 for approximately 100 people who attended. That did not included DHS, MH/DS, and Juvenile Probation. Johnson said Hogarty anticipates that employees of those departments may attend this year, which could essentially double the attendance from last year. Neuzil asked if they should just order cake rather than spend $1,000 on an employee lunch. The County already has an Employee Lunch. Stutsman said she thinks they should have cake only and wonders if they should have the event earlier in the day so people do not expect lunch to be provided. Sullivan pointed out that holding the event near the noon hour enables more employees to attend. Neuzil suggested they let everyone know in advance that lunch will not be included. Stutsman said employees may not attend if it will mean giving up their lunch break. Harney said the reason for providing lunch was to encourage people to attend. Neuzil agreed but said it is hard to justify two employee lunches.
Sullivan asked if they could provide a less elaborate lunch than they have in the past and suggested cutting out soda pop and cookies. Stutsman said another option would be to offer lunch only to the employees being recognized at the ceremony. Neuzil asked if it is allowed to offer lunch to a union employee while another employee is not offered lunch. He doesn’t think it is allowed. Stutsman said it would be a legitimate way to cut down on costs. Neuzil said he is okay with that option if it is allowed. Sullivan again suggested providing a less expensive meal. The Board members discussed less expensive options. Johnson asked if he should see if it is permissible to offer lunch only to recognized employees and their supervisors. Sullivan said he thinks they need to either offer lunch or not offer lunch. He wants employees to support their coworkers who are being recognized. Stutsman said they can attend; they just wouldn’t be offered lunch.
Neuzil suggested offering a boxed lunch only to employees who are being honored and asking them to RSVP. He asked Johnson to determine whether or not it is allowed to offer lunch only to those being honored. If not, the item should be put on a future Key Issues Meeting agenda. They could then consider options for providing a less expensive meal. Johnson agreed.
Johnson said he will send out some potential dates for a road tour during the first part of November. He asked if the incoming Supervisor’s assignments should be made during a specific meeting. Sullivan suggested doing so during either the Budget Meeting on November 2, 2009 or the Informal Meeting on November 4, 2009. The item can be added to an agenda. Stutsman agreed. Johnson said Sullivan had a question regarding Former Supervisor Larry Meyer’s position on the Facilities subcommittee of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee. Sullivan said he has been temporarily filling in on that subcommittee and wonders if the new Supervisor will be taking his place or if he will continue to serve on it. Neuzil said he is assuming the incoming Supervisor will be assigned to Meyer’s duties and that the Board will reassign duties in January 2010, as they normally do. Sullivan said he is happy to continue doing so until the new Supervisor takes over. Stutsman said she wouldn’t mind attending one of the subcommittee meetings. Neuzil said Sullivan and Stutsman can work it out and to make sure there are not more than two Supervisors in attendance.
Johnson apologized for not polling people regarding rescheduling the Strategic Planning Meeting. He said the November Key Issues Meeting is scheduled for the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and he wants to know if it will need to be rescheduled. Stutsman said she will not be available that day. Neuzil asked if they should have the next Strategic Planning Meeting in December. Sullivan said he would like to share information from the NACo Conference. Neuzil said their Strategic Planning will primarily concern budget issues. Johnson asked if he should add it to a Budget Meeting agenda. The Board members agreed, and Neuzil said Claiborne can let Johnson know whether to include it in the Budget Meeting scheduled for October 26, 2009 or the one scheduled for October 28, 2009.
Johnson reviewed that they will not have a Strategic Planning Meeting in November due to ISAC, and they will have a Key Issues Meeting on November 25, 2009. The Board members agreed. Stutsman asked if the next Strategic Planning Meeting is scheduled for December 16, 2009. Neuzil said yes. Johnson said he has been working with the Iowa City Planning Department on their planning sessions for this area, and they are scheduled for November 11, 12, and 13, 2009. The sessions will kick off on the evening of Veteran’s Day, and there will be focus groups on Thursday and Friday. There will also be a public gathering on Friday.
Johnson said the survey regarding Sutliff Bridge is now available on the County website. He thinks it should be online for 2 weeks. Stutsman asked what how the results will be tabulated. Johnson said Hogarty is tabulating the results of the surveys that were completed on October 19, 2009. The information from the surveys is for the Supervisors to use as they see fit. Stutsman asked if the Supervisors will get a report regarding the surveys completed online. Johnson said yes. Stutsman asked if the surveys are considered public records that are available to the public to view. Johnson said he assumes so. Sullivan said people do not have to give their names if they choose not to. Stutsman said she just wants to ensure that the report includes comments and other pertinent information. Johnson said it would.
Neuzil said Meyers was eligible to attend the upcoming Chamber Trip to Washington D.C. Since Stutsman has taken over as the Board’s Vice Chairperson, Neuzil is wondering if the other Supervisors are okay with allowing her the opportunity to attend. Harney said yes. Neuzil said the deadline to submit the application is around December 8, 2009. Harney asked if Stutsman would need to make her own air reservations. Neuzil said yes, but some of the other costs of the trip are covered by the County. Sullivan said it makes sense to him for Stutsman to go if she would like to do so since they have already budgeted for two people to attend. However, he recommends that they budget for only one person to attend in subsequent fiscal years. Stutsman and Neuzil agreed.
Johnson said there is an Elected Officials Meeting scheduled for October 26, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. and asked the Board members to let him know if they have agenda items for that meeting.
Stutsman said she received a phone call stating that the individual did not realize that the County was giving out match money for economic development projects. She doesn’t know that the Board is interested in hearing from every economic development group. Neuzil said he also spoke to someone from another organization who wants to make a request. The Board should discuss whether or not they want to add two economic development requests to their agenda. Sullivan said he would like to know how the organizations are similar and different and how they work together. Stutsman agreed. Neuzil asked if it is okay for representatives from the two organizations to come in to make requests. Sullivan said he would like to speak to representatives from all of the organizations at one time. Neuzil said he thinks it is a question of whether or not the Board is interested in adding the Entrepreneurial Development Center. If so, he thinks they should invite the other individuals to make the same request. He suggested further discussing the issue of budget requests for entities that support economic development during the upcoming budget discussions.
Sullivan suggested they also discuss the City’s share of ECICOG. Neuzil asked that both items be added to the agenda of the Budget Meeting scheduled for October 26, 2009. Johnson agreed and asked if someone from the City of Iowa City should be invited to the meeting. Stutsman asked if they have made the final decision. Sullivan said it sounds like they have. Neuzil said he assumes they would have received a letter if the decision was final. Harney agreed. Stutsman suggested that ECICOG Executive Director Doug Elliott be present at the meeting. Johnson said he will let Elliott know about the meeting.
Neuzil said he is assuming that Johnson will mentor the incoming Supervisor. Sullivan said he expects that Johnson will spend a lot of time with the individual during their first couple of days as Supervisor. Neuzil asked if Johnson is okay with that. Johnson agreed. Sullivan said everyone will do their part to help with the orientation.
Harney asked if there is any support for encouraging Legislators to push for a change of law that would allow Counties the opportunity to implement a sales tax. Stutsman said she thinks the issue should be placed on a future meeting agenda. Sullivan said the State maximum of $0.07 has already been reached in Iowa City and in many counties throughout the State. He doesn’t think the issue is a high priority. Harney disagreed and said he thinks the property tax bond issue may not be passed. Sullivan said it may be difficult to get anything passed. Neuzil said he is not interested in pursuing the sales tax issue. Sullivan agreed. Stutsman said she has heard from a number of people in the unincorporated area who say they did not understand what they were voting for and would have voted differently if they did. Sullivan said it was overwhelmingly voted down. Neuzil said the information was provided, and people should know what they are voting for. He said it doesn’t sound like a majority of the Board is interested in adding it as a legislative priority.
Adjourned at 11:48 a.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary