MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DECEMBER 2, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
General Basic Block Grant (20)
Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson: Joint Disaster Services Block Grant
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia: Various Dept. 20 Block Grants
Juvenile Crime Prevention (54)
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 1:05 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne asked Board members to open their laptops and refer to the Department 20 expense worksheet in the FY11 spreadsheet pertaining to Block Grants. He said Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson's item is on line number four, Block Grant Joint Disaster Services. Sullivan asked if it is the $13,215,000 item. Claiborne said that was the 2010 bonding, but it is $245,000 this year, $150,000 is the Block Grant request and $95,000 is for the truck replacement.
Wilson said that last year the Board approved an increase to the Emergency Management Block Grant of $150,000 for the two full-time employees' wages and benefits. He is requesting the same amount this year and said that it will still cover the full-time employees for operation of the department, even after taking into consideration Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek's December 1, 2009, presentation regarding pay scale.
Wilson said Emergency Management is asking for an additional $95,000 for the replacement of the rescue truck. Wilson said that, during budget meetings in 2008, Emergency Management had projected $65,000 out of the FY10 budget and $65,000 out of the FY11 budget. He said due to current economic trends, and the GM government buyout, which eliminated some truck models and increased costs of chassis, the projected cost has increased. Wilson reported that bids for the new rescue truck have come in at between $160,000 and $165,000, with one extremely high bid of $196,000 which was immediately eliminated. He calculated that Emergency Management has spent $13,000 from in the past 2 years on maintenance of the existing vehicle, which has a 23 year old box and approximately 15 year old chassis. Purchasing a new rescue truck and eliminating the oldest one in the fleet would eliminate this maintenance cost issue.
Harney asked what the total cost of the truck is. Wilson said it would be $65,000 from FY10 and $95,000 from FY11, for a total of $160,000 to $165,000. Neuzil said it appears that Emergency Management's budget request for FY11 is the same as the prior year with the exception of the additional expense of the replacement vehicle. Wilson agreed. Rettig asked why Emergency Management's total budget was $13,215,000 for FY10. Wilson said the funds for the Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) rolled into their budget. Rettig clarified that Emergency Management's total budget was actually $215,000 for FY10. Wilson said he believes that is correct, because the $65,000 for the truck was rolled into the $150,000 for the department. Rettig asked whether the FY11 request of $245,000 includes the extra $95,000. Claiborne added that Wilson has actually requested $30,000, not $95,000. He said they had budgeted $65,000 in FY10 and intended to budget $65,000 in FY11, but because the chassis are $30,000 more, Wilson is now asking for $95,000 instead of $65,000. Rettig said so $245,000 does include the $95,000 and Wilson and Claiborne said yes.
Stutsman asked if there are any grants available for these rescue trucks. Wilson confirmed that he had tried to apply for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG), which is the only grant that covers these vehicles, but was unsuccessful. There has only been one non-fire agency (Ambulance) that had been awarded funds from the AFG in the last five years. He added that Ambulance spent the $1,300 grant money on an CO2 Detector. He said there are three rounds of the FY10 granting process. He acknowledged that the first round is already closed and there were no awards given in Iowa. Round two is released around the end of January and three will be given towards the end of the fiscal year. He explained that he is not hopeful that Emergency Management will be awarded one of the AFGs. Stutsman asked Wilson if Emergency Management has still applied. Wilson said yes.
Harney asked Wilson if there was a conversion cost to this truck. Wilson answered that it was a whole new truck. He said the high cost of maintaining the existing oldest truck in the fleet was mostly attributed to chassis problems. He reported that Emergency Management had to replace the shocks and brakes, but there have also been electrical, suspension, and transmission issues. Sullivan asked Wilson if he has prepared a plan for next year to save the funds for a replacement rescue truck in a gradual process, such as $15,000 annually over a ten year period. Wilson said when he inherited the department there was no fleet management plan. He said there is a plan for Emergency Management to set aside money after the purchase of the new truck. He explained that the expected life of the vehicle is 15 years, and the oldest vehicle is well past that expiration date. Sullivan asked again if the Board will begin seeing an effort to save money each year. He said yes.
Rettig asked Wilson to clarify the cost of maintaining the old vehicle. Wilson said Emergency Management has spent $13,000 in the last two years. Rettig said that averages out to only about $6,000 a year. Wilson responded that the costs increase with each year. Emergency Management spent more this year and less last year, but the numbers equal to $13,000. He referred Rettig to the spreadsheet he provided to the Board. He said the more years that are on the truck, the more expensive it gets to maintain.
Stutsman reminded Wilson that the Board is in the budget process, and asked what would happen if the Board could not fully fund the requested increase of $30,000. Wilson responded with two potential arrangements for FY11, a lease or a payment plan. He also said Emergency Management could wait until FY12, but then the cost of the vehicle will increase. Stutsman asked if he could get the $30,000 out of the FY10 budget. Wilson reiterated that there is only $150,000 for two full-time employees. The grant money is designated for specific projects only. He responded that there is no money left unaccounted for in their budget. He reported that the Medical Examiners Department gets more money and that the Emergency Management's award has only been higher than the donation to the Agricultural Association for the Johnson County Fairgrounds for 2 years. Stutsman reminded Wilson that the County is good to the Emergency Management, in comparison with other counties across the State of Iowa. Wilson said he does not disagree.
Neuzil asked where his revenues are located on the spreadsheets. Wilson said they are not located on any reports from Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne. He said those numbers would show up in the Auditor's Revenue Report, examples would include the Emergency Management Performance grant, which is about $50,000 a year, the Iowa Energy Center grant around $18,000 a year, and the Hazard Mitigation grant between $5,000 and $15,000 a year. Neuzil stated that he was aware that the Emergency Management Commission will see the specific budget during the meeting on January 27, 2010. He asked Wilson if he will think it is enough, since Emergency Management also helps to cover costs of Joint Disaster Services along with JECC. Wilson responded that the phones and electrical are expenses for the department. The Emergency Management Department uses the Emergency Management Performance and Iowa Energy Center grants for the shared expenses which cover janitorial and a portion of the electrical costs. He said that Emergency Management is not responsible for the costs of many other areas. For example, Emergency Management runs the new tornado sirens, but the first two were purchased by the County with a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in 2009.
Neuzil asked if there were any anticipated future needs. Wilson said Emergency Management takes direction from both the Emergency Management Commission and the Board of Supervisors as to what their interests are. He said the Emergency Management Commission approves the budget and then passes it to the Board for funding. This process leans on the support of the Board, so Emergency Management tries to keep their goals in synch. He said Emergency Management never tried to purchase tornado sirens before, but that there is some interest from Sullivan in expanding the program. The first two tornado sirens were covered by CDBG, so if the Board wants them to buy more then Emergency Management will need money for those. Neuzil said that new tornado sirens may be an item to look for in the future, but not in the FY11 budget. For FY11, the truck will get paid off. He added that, after FY11, those additional dollars may allow for Emergency Management to purchase more tornado sirens. Stutsman reminded Wilson and the Board that there is no guarantee that the $95,000 will be included in Emergency Management's budget in the future. Neuzil said it is alarming to him that there are not additional sirens in some of the more densely populated areas under Johnson County's jurisdiction. Wilson said he discovered several alarming things when he took over as department head two years ago. The amount of revenue did not even cover staffing costs.
Harney said there are available grants to cover the cost of new sirens. Wilson said that is not typical. The CDBG was the first time Emergency Management has seen a grant cover sirens in a long time. He said it seems intuitive that a Hazard Mitigation Grant program would fund sirens and back-up power generation, but those are usually the last items that the grant will fund. He reminded the Board that Emergency Management did not have a compliant Hazard Mitigation grant program before Wilson took office. It was adopted six months ago.
Rettig referred to the 2009 maintenance spreadsheet and said that it shows Emergency Management has spent $3,700 on repairs. She said the old truck is worth $165,000. Wilson said he was not certain what Emergency Management paid for the truck. Rettig said she was referring to replacement value. She said each truck costs approximately $11,000 a year, since it has a 15 year life span. She said when the repair costs add up to more than what it would cost her to replace her own personal vehicle, then she feels the need to purchase a new one. She asked Wilson if Emergency Management could get another year out of the oldest vehicle they currently have because repairs only totaled $4,000 during 2009. Wilson remarked that he did not know. He said the repairs done to the current vehicle were substantial, for example engine repairs and major electrical repairs. He contended that relying on this vehicle is not what he would recommend from an emergency response standpoint. He said the engine has had the same repair done twice, which was a fairly long repair.
Stutsman asked how many miles were on the rescue truck Emergency Management wants to replace. He said it has less than 50,000 miles on the vehicle, but the degrading results from the way it is driven, the fact that it is run on diesel, and that it sits cold in the garage and then goes from zero to 90 immediately with no warm up. He said the treatment of these vehicles is worse than an ambulance, because an ambulance is at least utilized more often for routine outings. This vehicle is never run routine, unless it is coming back to the garage from a call or is used for training.
Harney asked if there was a warranty on the engine repairs since the same fix had to have been done just six months later. Wilson said one would assume so, but no. It was done by mechanic Joe Schrock at Truck Shop in Coralville, who has been doing the majority of the maintenance on it. Wilson said that Schrock said it was a similar issue, but with holes on the opposite side of the engine head.
Neuzil summed up that the intention of Emergency Management is to replace this vehicle in the next year. He said the Board should put this on the list of possible items to budget and if the Board determines that it cannot be funded, then it will have to remain in use for another year. Stutsman asked what the vehicle was used for. Wilson said it is a County rescue truck that goes out on rescue calls in the County, including farm and motor vehicle accidents.
Sullivan said he would like to see more detailed information, similar to what is prepared for the Emergency Management Commission. He said other boards and commissions pass on this information to Claiborne for the Board to review, such as expense spreadsheets. He said that he would like to see more on what comes in and what goes out. Wilson said the problem is synching up this information with the timing of the Budget Work Sessions and the timing of the Emergency Management budget, which is adopted and transferred in later, during January and February. He said that his first step in the budget process is approaching the Board in December to discuss the cost of two full-time staff members and any additional expenditures, which helps to determine the revenue side of Emergency Management's budget. An item that Emergency Management does not control is the Hazardous Materials Coverage 28E Agreement which contracts the hazardous materials per capita, which is $.25 per capita.
Sullivan reiterated that he would like to see more detail. Claiborne responded that the Auditor's Office does their accounting; therefore, Emergency Management's budget is not represented on the sheet given to the Board. He said that he can produce this information for the Board if they would like, but the timing of the fiscal year is different. Sullivan asked the Claiborne to just remind the Board that the spreadsheets are six months old at the time they are created. Wilson said that it is the second year that the JECC money is included in the Emergency Management budget, so it looks artificially higher. He remarked that the $13 million is not his. Neuzil questioned why this was done, since JECC is identified as line item seven in FY09 and as line item three in FY10. Wilson responded that it has never been used because JECC is still having the discussion about who is in charge of accounts payable after FY10.
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia directed the Board to look at the spreadsheet provided and explained that FY09 is in the current FY10 allocation. She pointed the Board to the requests that came in from all of the agencies' request forms, which are given to the governmental funding sources and United Way. She informed the Board that last year United Way instituted a two year funding cycle, therefore they are not reviewing applications this year. Given the instructions from the Board to provide a status quo budget, the recommendation is to retain the current level of funding for all the presently funded agencies.
Correia said that there was not a Community Needs and Assessment done this year, which had been initiated by United Way prior to the June 2008 flood. Correia remarked that she was a part of this process, but efforts were suspended due to the flood recovery efforts. She said that the Community Needs and Assessments Steering Committee is being reinvigorated now, with a meeting scheduled on December 11, 2009. She added that she will send in quarterly statements and financial statements, unless the Board has special requests on community needs or strategic funding. She stated that, in the decision package, she mentions one item. It was included in line 28 titled Resource Broker Aging Specialist for the Livable Community for Successful Aging. She informed the Board that at the time the decision package information was due, she had not had the request from the Policy Board for this initiative. This item was considered at the last Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board meeting on November 11, 2009. She said that the Policy Board is now requesting $19,500 to fund this new Aging Specialist, instead of the amount listed in the spreadsheet. She remarked that this adds $13,000 to the bottom line.
Correia said she had put in the $6,500 as a placeholder. Neuzil asked if this is what Social Services had received last year. Correia reminded the Board that they had approved funding of $13,000 for FY10, with $6,500 being the direct line item. For FY09, there was an allocation of $25,000, but approximately $11,000 was spent. She said that there was an agreement with the Board that if the initiative needed funding to meet its goals, then the additional $6,500 and up to $13,000 would be available for FY10. She said that this was needed to maintain the website, which is an important resource, as well as continue efforts on creating livable communities. Claiborne asked if this would be a spring amendment. Correia affirmed.
Neuzil asked if her current request was to keep it at $6,500. Correia said no, she was instructed to keep it at $6,500. Afterwards, she had the recommendation from the Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board. Neuzil responded that Correia had a lot of recommendations but she kept those line items. Correia said that those were based on requests and she did not have the request from the Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board. She just got the request. Sullivan said that most of the requests are higher than Correia had put in the proposed budget. Correia said that she kept them the same as FY10. Rettig asked if the FY10 budget will be $13,000 after the budget amendment. Correia said yes, to maintain status quo. Rettig noted that to maintain status quo, it will be $13,000 for FY11. Correia agreed. Rettig reported that they have instead requested $19,000. Correia agreed. Claiborne asked if Correia wanted $13,000 to be requested for FY11. Correia responded that she wants at least $13,000.
Sullivan said that it is a little premature to decide on $13,000 for FY11, since that same amount has not yet been decided on by the Board at the spring amendment. Stutsman asked if Sullivan meant that the Board should wait and see if the money was spent. Correia responded that there is work to be done that would cost $13,000. Sullivan said that he does not disagree, but that he does not want to give Correia the impression that the $13,000 is there. He said that the Board does not really know until May, when the Board makes the decision to put it in the budget or not. Neuzil said that the Board needs to know what to budget for in FY11. He asked what Correia's recommendation is. Correia said that given the work that can be accomplished with $13,000, keeping the budget at $6,500 would significantly reduce the ability to maintain during FY10. Stutsman asked if Correia is recommending $13,000. Correia said yes. Claiborne asked if Correia wanted him to input $19,500 as the amount requested by the Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board.
Neuzil said that this was the line item that was in limbo. He asked Correia if she was not making any additional adjustments to her recommendations from FY10 to FY11. Correia said correct, because those are her directions. Neuzil said that the direction was to keep the bottom line. Correia confirmed this. She reported that she did not adjust any numbers within the line items because she did not have any significant concerns about any one agency's work, there was no agreed upon way to make shifts along lines.
Rettig said that she read an article in the newspaper that morning about the demands on the Crisis Center food. She asked if Correia was familiar with this and how much trouble they were in. Correia said that she had not had any specific conversations with the Crisis Center and that she can initiate that. She said that General Assistance has seen an increased demand for food assistance. Case loads have gone up nationally. She explained that in Iowa, demands on any basic human need services are up. Sullivan said that two-thirds of the agencies requested more, but none requested a lot more. Stutsman remarked that the requests were similar to cost of living increases. Sullivan said that one agency requested $2,000 more, which was not much.
Sullivan said there is some question regarding Youth Homes, found on line 9. He said that everything they are doing is basically funded by the State of Iowa. He asked whether or not the County has a role in supplementing what the State pays for. Correia answered that the Four Oaks Youth Home allocation was two or three years ago. She remarked that she was concerned about this when she looked at the County funding. She said that the services Four Oaks provides are not free services, and are not available to anybody without the ability to pay. Therefore, Social Services did significantly reduce the total allocation that they had been receiving from $65,000 to $37,000 in the first year. She reported that Social Services has a different funding process for two of the lines, Four Oaks and Livable Community. These two agencies bill through Correia each month for actual costs. She said that all of the others are block grants, which get one-fourth each quarter for direct operational support. She said that Social Services is currently supporting Four Oaks for tuition assistance to families with kids that have behavioral or emotional disturbance in order to attend Four Oaks' specialized daycare, but do not qualify for a State of Iowa childcare assistance program. These families would not otherwise be able to afford the specialized childcare that Four Oaks provides. Correia explained that some of the reasons these families would not be able to eligible for the State of Iowa childcare assistance would be that the families do not work the exact hours of that time, or that they make a bit over the financial eligibility. It costs about twice as much for the specialized daycare, so that they can maintain the lower ratio. She said that Social Services also supports a program which provides family support services to those families involved in the specialized daycare, including a support group and counselors that help with medication management.
Sullivan said that he thinks it is important for those Johnson County residents to be able to walk in and receive service, if deemed appropriate for service. He maintained that it is important that it is open to everyone when the Board uses tax dollars on these programs. Correia asked Sullivan if she had answered his question. Sullivan affirmed that she had. Neuzil said that, with this portion of the FY11 budget, the Board is going to continue to rely on Correia for where she thinks the recommendation should be for particular dollars to be spent on basic human needs. At some point in strategic planning, now that there is another Board member, the Board needs to go back and see where they want to emphasize its dollars, whether it is for children's needs or basic human needs. He acknowledged that this would be a good vision. Stutsman and Correia said that had been talked about during the liaison meeting. Correia said that she will be developing a process. Neuzil said that the Board is getting a lot closer to having the expertise with Correia as Social Services Coordinator to make some recommendations like that. Sullivan said that it is telling that Social Services does not have agencies requesting three times what they are being given. He concluded that it indicates that they are in agreement with the way Correia is doing things. Correia responded that she does not necessarily agree with that, but not to say that the agencies do not feel that way. She reported that in a majority of the cases the funding level is based on historic funding practice. She said that generally this is a part of agencies' budgetary process to consider what is realistic and what they received before. Since there have not been adjustments on the County's end, significantly shifting around dollars, it is really more based on status quo. She recognized that the agencies understand that the County does not have additional money for these programs. Neuzil said that the County is contributing just under $1.15 million into these community services. He said that he does not know if the community realizes that this is a pretty large contribution. He agreed that maybe the agencies working with Social Services recognize this large contribution, too. He said that he cannot imagine that other counties are making those contributions.
Rettig referred to the Joint Funding Analysis that Correia provided and asked whether or not anyone else gives direct contributions to the Crisis Center Food Bank, line item number 14. Correia said when she began as Social Services Coordinator, historically there were two lines in the County budget supporting the Crisis Center Food Bank. She informed the Board that one of the lines is a general Crisis Center operational and one is specific to the Crisis Center Food Bank. The other entity is to provide direct allocation and then the Crisis Center decides where it is most needed. She said that she would not assume that those dollars are not supporting the Crisis Center Food Bank. For some reason, that is earmarked that way by the County. She said that she could not say that the $43,000 that is earmarked for the Crisis Center is not also helping the Food Bank, because the Crisis Center operation includes the Food Bank. Harney clarified that the $31,500 has to go specifically to the Food Bank. Correia confirmed this and said that it is clear to the Crisis Center when she sends them the funding letter. Rettig said that she found the Joint Funding Analysis particularly helpful. Stutsman said that it is interesting when she looks at Coralville's contribution to these agencies.
Neuzil asked if there were any questions regarding Social Service agencies and the Block Grant 20. Correia said that she would send the Board an updated Joint Funding Analysis spreadsheet on FY10. She conferred that she does not have all of the United Way data, but she will get it.
Claiborne referred to the Entrepreneurial Development Center at $25,000 for four years. He said that Stutsman had mentioned some others that unofficially came in and Correia should add those as they make a request. Stutsman asked if the Board should have Correia go over Juvenile Crime Prevention while she is at the meeting. Neuzil stated that he is amazed to know how much more the County gives to United Way agencies than United Way themselves. Correia responded that there are 16 additional United Way agencies that the County does not fund. Sullivan said that two are Goodwill and the Arc of Southeast Iowa. Stutsman asked if Red Cross was a United Way agency. Correia said she could not remember. She said that the breakdown only lists the agencies that the County helps to fund. Stutsman said that Neuzil's point does not bother me as much as seeing what Coralville contributes. Neuzil acknowledged Iowa City in that category with $429,000 of contributions in FY09, when Johnson County is at $1.165 million. Stutsman and Neuzil both acknowledged that Coralville is at $54,000. Correia said that Coralville supports the Coralville Family Resource Center, which is not included in the Joint Funding Analysis spreadsheet. Stutsman asked what the amount is. Correia said that she is not sure what it is now, somewhere around $20,000 and $30,000.
Stutsman said that it is an indication, historically, of what the County sees as its role in human services provisions and what Coralville sees as their role in human services provisions. Sullivan said that the County has Code which accounts for these items, and the cities do not. He noted that he applauds Iowa City's efforts. Stutsman said that the County goes above and beyond, but that is what the County historically supports.
Correia reports that there were additional revenue coming in that Social Services is not seeing anymore. The State of Iowa redirected the Criminal Juvenile Justice Planning dollars to the Chief Juvenile Court Officers. She explained that the funding is now made from the Chief Juvenile Court Officer, rather than from the County through the Decategorization Board (Decat). She reported that FY11 is the first year where the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) money is out. But there are still some Decategorization Board contracts that are included in the budget line, such as the functional family therapy which is contracted to Four Oaks to provide. She added that these are all pass throughs, which means that if that revenue goes away, then the expense goes away. Correia said that the money that is requested from the General Fund is for three programs. She explained that one is $200,000, which makes up the competitive grant that goes through the Juvenile Justice Youth Development Board planning process. Social Services had that competitive grant process during FY10 to start FY11 with a three year funding cycle with all the programs that are receiving funding through that. She remarked that there is an understanding that the continuation of a contract agreement is based on a program's performance, which is evaluated through a review team from the Juvenile Justice Youth Development Policy Board. The continuation of a contract is also based on availability of money from the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.
Correia explained that another program is the Scholarship and Activity Fund, which is $4,500. This helps to support the Children's Initiative Fund which Social Services also does private fundraising for and this money goes through the Community Foundation. Social Services then makes the payments to scholarships and activities for youth who are homeless, involved with juvenile court, or are low income. Sullivan asked Correia how much money the Community Foundation has been able to raise. Correia said that it was around $6,000.
Correia explained that another program is the Consortium for Youth Employment, which is proposed for $24,000 from the County this year. She reported that the program is receiving a $14,000 grant from the City of Iowa City through their funding process. She recalled that in the past there were other grants through the Decategorization Board and the Community Foundation. Harney asked if anyone else contributes to the Consortium for Youth Employment besides the City of Iowa City and Johnson County. Correia said not at this time. Harney asked if the funds then stay within the compensating communities. Correia said yes, that it is all Johnson County. Harney clarified that Iowa City's contributions stay within Iowa City. Correia said yes. Neuzil asked if the funding request is the same as last year. Correia said yes.
Rettig said the total loss of revenues is reported at $731 and total increase in expenditures is less $25,000. She asked how that can be if Correia is explaining the difference as pass through. Correia said that there is a new Decategorization Board contract that came through, which is probably why the spreadsheet is not estimating some of the revenue for the Consortium for Youth Employment. Neuzil said that it is just a matter of going through the spreadsheets to locate the error. Correia said that her math could be wrong. Rettig asked whether or not the agency is getting funding, or whether or not the agency is spending $24,000 less in this area. Correia said that overall Social Services will be spending less, because of the change in contracting in terms of the County support. Claiborne said budget FY10 had $390,000. If it drops $25,000, then the FY11 budget will be $365,000. This expense budget ties out to the decision packet. He reported that Social Services is losing out on $13,000 in a State of Iowa grant, but is gaining $12,269 in a PPB match, a difference of $731 down in a revenue. Stutsman suggested that Correia should work to locate the error in the calculations and return to present the information to the Board. Neuzil said the Board needs to know that the dollars, which were allocated for FY10 are the same as this coming year, FY11.
Claiborne said that the information given to the Board needs to be updated because a request just came in from the Solon Library, up $13,457 from FY10. He remarked that Regency Community Center, which missed out being put in the FY10, wants $12,500. Stutsman asked what the Regency Community Center is. Correia said that when Social Services first put Regency in the budget it was because they were worried that the rural community would need some social services. The Decategorization Board has continued to fund this. She said the Breckenridge Estates Mobile Home Park had come to the attention of a Community Partnership Project employee, and that new services are being considered for this area. The amount from Johnson County is being matched with the State of Iowa funding to provide an after school program at Lemme Elementary and family support for those families that live at Breckenridge. She remarked that this has been a nice collaboration by providing families with a connection to the school. She reported that there are a high number of Spanish speaking families living in the mobile home park, so the family support worker is bilingual and can translate documents from the school, so the Spanish speaking families know about school events. This family support worker also arranges transportation, so these families and children can participate in school activities and events during non school time. She said this is an underserved area.
Neuzil asked if the $12,500 for Regency Community Center is going to be incorporated into the spring budget amendment requests. Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said that when he reviewed the minutes from the FY10 budget discussions, Social Services had clearly intended on including Regency Community Center in the budget, but it was omitted. Stutsman asked if Correia would recommend doing anything for Breckenridge. Correia said that the funds for the Regency Community Center is what Social Services will use. Regency is now funded through the Decategorization Board, which is how the County is supporting rural social services. Sullivan said that every year the Board goes through the budget and wishes they could change some of the names of the line items. He said this is one of them. Correia responded that it did change. Neuzil said that Claiborne just changed that line to say Social Services, and that the Board should get the updated one.
Johnson said that he had received an email from Trails Advisory Committee Chair Terry Dahms requesting $5,200 for trail maintenance for FY11 and a continuation of the same level of funding. Neuzil responded that the Board had reduced it to $75,000. Johnson read from the letter that the trail budget was $175,000, composed of $100,000 from a General Basic Block Grant and $75,000 from a Rural Basic Block Grant. The Committee requests the same amount for FY11, less the 2% cut that the Board is requesting from all County departments. He said that there is a separate memo from Dahm regarding the $5,200. Neuzil asked if this $5,200 is in regards to signage. Johnson responded that this money is for a winter trail maintenance proposal for the Dubuque Street Trail. The Committee recommends no County maintenance this winter, but that it should be included in the budget for FY12 in the amount of $5,200. This amount is based on an estimate from Quality Care and would clear the trail from Butler Bridge to North Liberty. He read that this amount would be a worst case scenario and covers up to 20 snow removal trips; with the threshold for one trip is a snowfall of one inch or more.
Neuzil remarked that this is less than Conservation Director Harry Graves' estimate of $14,000, but it is still $5,200. Stutsman said that the Board can include it. Neuzil stated that it is still part of the $75,000. Sullivan said that the $5,200 amount only covers winter. He said Graves was talking about brushing it, which is more important. Stutsman remarked that they would have to buy a piece of equipment to do that job. Harney said that this equipment would remove the rock and debris. Sullivan reminded the Board that Dahm's letter is asking for $175,000 less the 2% cut that the Board is asking for. He calculated that $5,200 is 2.9% of the $175,000. He suggested that the Board keep it at $175,000 and designate the $5,000. Neuzil said he thought that was what Dahm was asking. First, that the request is the same as last year. Second, that Dahm was letting the Board know that the Trails Advisory Committee may be spending $5,200 on maintenance.
Rettig said line 14 states County Trails Plan in FY09 was only actual $5,000 but budgeted at $100,000. Stutsman asked if that was in Secondary Roads budget. Rettig asked if that was in Secondary Roads budget in FY09, then why is it not there now. Neuzil said it was moved in FY10 to this line. Rettig concluded that if that is true, then there should not be $5,000 in FY09 when it was $100,000. She said that the County cut its commitment to trails funding last year. Neuzil said that was less $25,000. Stutsman said she wonders if the $5,000 was to do the plan and not the actual Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Neuzil recalled that for FY09, the Board wanted this item included in Rural Basic Block Grant and not in Secondary Roads. Stutsman said that, for this item, there is some in Secondary Roads and some in the Rural Basic Block Grant budget. Neuzil asked where the $100,000 from General Funds ends up. Claiborne stated that it is located under Department 44, Capital Expenditures. Rettig clarified that the trails program took a 12.5% decrease in their budget for FY09. Neuzil reiterated that the County reduced trails funding by $25,000. Sullivan stated that Rettig and Neuzil were both right. Claiborne remembered that it was because the Board was trying to make up for the Conservation Bond.
Rettig remarked that the Board also cut the trails budget by $13,000, what was designated for gravel. Of the $175,000 budget, there was a 12.5% cut and then the budget amendment for additional gravel was taken out of the trails fund last month. Claiborne said no, the gravel was taken out of another budget area. Sullivan recalled that the amount was $14,000, but he does not believe that the decision was made last month. Rettig reported that this issue arose in October 2009, when she was attending meetings on the budget amendment as a private citizen. She said that the trails fund was cut $75,000 plus $14,000 this year in FY09. Sullivan agreed that the trails program did take a cut, and this was based on two reasons. One, the Board had set aside money that had not been spent yet. Two, that the trails program money was diverted to flood recovery. Stutsman reiterated that the money had not yet been spoken for. Sullivan said that the Board was aware that the money would eventually be spoken for. Rettig said that it could have been spent to finish the Dubuque Street Trail. She concluded that trails took a 19.5% cut in FY10. Stutsman said it may happen again for FY11, there are no guarantees. Neuzil reminded Stutsman that the Board could also increase it. Stutsman agreed.
Neuzil said that the request from the Committee is to maintain the budget at $75,000 and asked if the Board is comfortable with that amount for now. Stutsman said yes, for now. Sullivan reminded the Board that this is the same amount that Dahms requested also. Claiborne noted that the Board can make adjustments in the early part of 2010, when they are informed about amount of the levies. Sullivan asked how much is actually spent and how much is saved, in regards to trails. He noted that trails shows up in two or three places in the budget. Claiborne reported that he sent an email in November 2009 showing what was left. He explained that he had broken it down for the Board into the Rural Basic and General Basic funds. Sullivan said that he does remember getting the email. Neuzil said that this fund was to be used for matching other grant opportunities, and that was what it has been used for thus far. He said the Board has not identified a particular project to pay 100% of the project. He noted that now there is some money built up over the last three years of saving, and the Board can consider this.
Stutsman read a memo from Claiborne, which said that $500,000 is available in Rural Basic, and $283,957 is in Capital Expenditures, budget department number 44. Set up in FY08, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was designated at the Board's discretion for road improvements, too. The $500,000 in Rural Basic is subject to the CIP. Sullivan said that the Board was putting half of the money into trails and half into CIP. Technically, it was undesignated money, but if the Board was doing what they said, it would be $250,000 in rural and $283,000 in general. He noted that the CIP has been up in the air somewhat. Claiborne recalled that due to the flood, the Board decided to remove gravel from the CIP part of the fund and tap into that money. He reiterated that it is not just trails money, it is CIP also. Sullivan asked if the Board had tapped into Capital Expenditures or Rural Basic. Claiborne confirmed that it was Rural Basic, Department 23. Sullivan asked why it was listed as an even $500,000, should it be less $14,000. Claiborne said that $14,000 came out of FY10, and FY09 must have been another bill for $5,000 and he would have to look up what it was. He reminded the Board that this had started July 1st, and the $14,000 was a newer bill for FY10. He said he remembers filling out the claim for it. Sullivan said this means there is some flexibility depending on how the Board ends up feeling about it.
Johnson said the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Rural Assessment is in one of the budgets that the Board was discussing. Neuzil asked why it is down so much from FY09. Sullivan said it was down from FY09 to FY10 because JCCOG took out the money that was designated for landfill, which no one was using. He reported that Assistant Transportation Planner Brad Neumann said that he is still in charge of the landfill expense, but cannot charge the County for it because nothing was done.
Stutsman said that Sullivan and her need some direction from the Board regarding the JCCOG assessment. Neuzil asked if this regarded whether or not the County funds Iowa City's portion of the JCCOG assessment. Stutsman said that both JCCOG and ECICOG are involved, but it was the $20,000 that the City of Iowa City currently pays to the ECICOG that they no longer want to pay. Johnson said that he met with both JCCOG Executive Director John Yapp and ECICOG Executive Director Doug Elliot in order to understand this. He reported that Elliot gave an example of Jones County, which made a 10% budget cut across-the-board in FY10. Jones County had informed ECICOG that they were going to only pay 90% of their assessment bill. ECICOG responded by saying that Jones County has then not paid for their assessment and are no longer part of ECICOG. Johnson continued to recall that Elliot suggested that ECICOG would take a similar position for the City of Iowa City. He said that some people have responded by saying that the City of Cedar Rapids does not participate. In that case, Linn County pays for the entire assessment cost. Neuzil said he assumes that if Johnson County chooses to pay for this, then the County gets to choose who will be their representative on the ECICOG Board. Stutsman explained that it is typically a city council person. Neuzil confirmed this, but added that it is because the City of Iowa City pays right now. Sullivan concluded that it would seem that the City of Iowa City would lose their voting rights if they decided not to pay. Stutsman said that she understood, from the memo, that if the County does not pick up the $20,000 and pay it, then the County is also no longer a member of the ECICOG. Johnson said Elliot thinks this will be the ECICOG Board's position on this.
Rettig asked what the County pays to ECICOG now. She asked whether or not that budget is up now. Neuzil said $20,000. Stutsman said that adding the City of Iowa City's cost would double what the County pays now. Rettig asked if the assessment costs $43,000 for the entire County, or whether that is higher. Stutsman asked if this also includes the cost to the other communities, such as Hills, Lone Tree, North Liberty and Tiffin. Sullivan added that they currently pay. Stutsman said this could be a lot bigger bill. Rettig noted that the cost of the entire County assessment could be much bigger than just what the City of Iowa City and the County currently pays.
Neuzil asked if Linn County pays for every small community within their boundary. Johnson answered that all other counties within ECICOG pay the entire bill for their county. Neuzil restated that Johnson County is looking at potentially paying a lot more than $20,000. Sullivan said only two of the participating counties in ECICOG have their own metropolitan planning agencies, Linn County and Johnson County. In Jones County, there is no version of JCCOG, the only planning organization is ECICOG. Therefore, there is only one payment. Rettig asked if Johnson County makes additional payments to JCCOG, other than for the General Assessment and the Rural Assessment. Neuzil explained that there is ECICOG and JCCOG, the Board needs to know what the full amount of Johnson County's commitment to ECICOG would be, if the City of Iowa City chooses not to pay. If the County is forced to pay the full amount, it is in Neuzil's opinion that the County needs to determine who is going to be the representative, which is not necessarily the City of Iowa City or City of Coralville. Rettig said the total funding of JCCOG also needs to be considered in the decision. She noted that there are only two lines of JCCOG, and asked if there was more money being spent on JCCOG elsewhere in the budget. Sullivan said yes, the County pays in the urban area as well.
Neuzil asked why there is a JCCOG, if the County is paying for ECICOG. Rettig said that she would want to know both of those at once as she is making this decision. She noted that there are two different planning bodies. She asked if one city does not pay their share of the assessment cost to ECICOG and all of the other cities say that they are going to continue to pay, then does it mean that those other cities are automatically not eligible for transportation enhancement funds or any other funding. Stutsman said that they do not get those funds from ECICOG, their venue is JCCOG. Rettig questioned that all Federal funds come through JCCOG, and none come through ECICOG. Stutsman and Sullivan said yes. Sullivan said an example of this would be that, during the flood, the City of Coralville was making an issue of the fact that the City of Iowa City was a Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Community and the City of Coralville was not. The City of Coralville was saying that they have to go through ECICOG and the City of Iowa City can go through JCCOG but Coralville cannot. He said that it was an awkward situation because the City of Coralville reported that they always felt like an equal partner in JCCOG. Neuzil asked for clarification, that currently Iowa City is making a contribution to ECICOG, even though they do not receive any services through ECICOG. Claiborne said no.
Claiborne referenced the Board's request for the assessment budget information, and reported that the County pays $19,882 to JCCOG out of Central Services General Basic. Johnson added that the total General Assessment to ECICOG is $38,000 for Johnson County communities, and the County's share of that cost is $7,000. Neuzil clarified that Johnson County would then be going from a $7,000 contribution to potentially to a $38,000 commitment. Johnson confirmed and added that there would be an additional $6,333 for small communities.
Stutsman said that she was really disappointed with the City of Iowa City. She said that the City of Iowa City is now basically forcing Johnson County to pay the $20,000, because if the County does not pay that, then the County is no longer a member of ECICOG. She reminded the Board that the City of Iowa City does get State of Iowa money for housing, which went through ECICOG. Rettig reiterated that the City of Iowa City does get services through ECICOG and she would like to know what funding sources they do have. Sullivan said the City of Iowa City gets SEATS. Harney said that City of Iowa City gets SEATS and vans, planning, and transportation studies done. Johnson added that ECICOG Chairperson and City of Coralville Council Member Henry Herwig is bringing this information to the December 2, 2009, JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board meeting, which he is a representative for.
Sullivan asked Johnson and Claiborne for the numbers one more time, regarding JCCOG and ECICOG. Johnson replied that the ECICOG General Assessment is $38,260 and that there is a Small Communities Assessment of $6,333. Rettig asked if the County pays for the Small Communities portion entirely also. Johnson said that, in the past, the County's portion was $7,139 for the General Assessment and $0 for Small Communities Assessment. He reported that, for the assessment costs to JCCOG, the City of Iowa City pays $339,983, the County pays $35,726, and the small communities pay varying amounts. Neuzil asked if there were City of Iowa City Council Members currently on the ECICOG Board. Stutsman said yes, Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion and one other person are on the ECICOG Board. Neuzil wanted someone to clarify whether or not they would serve on the ECICOG Board after the City of Iowa City stopped funding.
Rettig asked how much Johnson County pays JCCOG. Stutsman said $38,000. Sullivan said that he came up with $41,000. Rettig responded that $41,000 was for ECICOG and that we pay JCCOG. Stutsman said that she is disappointed in the City of Iowa City not viewing this as a County issue, and just viewing it from an Iowa City perspective. She reported that Johnson County does not get as many benefits from JCCOG and the County still contributes $38,000. She remarked that the County gets shut out when funding becomes available to JCCOG, for example the Dubuque Street Trail project. Neuzil said that it seems to him that if the City of Iowa City does not want to be a part of ECICOG, which sounds like their intent, then they are no longer a part of ECICOG. Harney said that he would think the rest of the County could then participate. Stutsman responded that the City of Iowa City will be a part of ECICOG because the County will pay their portion of the assessment. Neuzil confirmed this, but added that the City of Iowa City will no longer have ECICOG Board representation. Rettig remarked that the City of Iowa City will still have access to the funding stream. Neuzil stated that he does not think they will. Stutsman said that the City of Iowa City will still be considered a member as long as the County is paying for the assessment costs. Neuzil said that this will be true as long as the County lets them be a part of the decision making. Harney added that he would like to hear more about what the County has to do or does not have to do from Elliot. Rettig remarked that Stutsman needs direction from the Board for tonight's JCCOG meeting.
Sullivan referenced a letter written by Iowa City Interim City Manager Dale Helling and said that it was misleading. He reported that Helling wrote that no other counties approach the assessment costs the way Johnson County does. Sullivan observed that no other counties do it the same way as Johnson County in the ECICOG region, but across the State of Iowa there are a lot of counties that perform individual assessments. He conjectured that it is like a buy-in for the assessment, why should anyone get anything for free. When the City of Iowa City buys in to the assessment, then they have a reason to care. Neuzil said that he wants to be assured that if the County is forced to pay for the City of Iowa City, then Iowa City will no longer have representation on the ECICOG Board. Stutsman and Sullivan agreed. Stutsman said it does not make much of a difference because on a 21 person ECICOG Board, the City of Iowa City only had one or two votes. Neuzil stated that those are now County seats on the ECICOG Board, and the City of Iowa City has to go through the County to make a request. Stutsman said there needs to be a clarification on the bylaws of the ECICOG. Neuzil said the City of Iowa City can no longer call Elliot at ECICOG, they have to call the County who will then talk to Elliot. He stated that he was assuming this is the way it will be. Sullivan inferred that the City of Iowa City will not have a problem with that.
Stutsman noted that the City of Iowa City will work with ECICOG the same way as Linn County does. Sullivan speculated that the Coralville City Council Member Henry Herwig will look at this situation and conclude that if Iowa City does not have to pay, then Coralville does not as well. Stutsman said that is exactly what is going to happen. Rettig stated that the County is going to go from a $7,000 payment to approximately $41,000. She concluded that any other city that will also request that the County pay their share, the County will be forced to. Neuzil said that the County needs to establish that the request process will go through the County representatives, not directly to ECICOG. Rettig stated that process gives the County the ability to rank priorities for ECICOG. Neuzil reiterated that if the County is forced to be a part of ECICOG and pay for all of their services, then the control will be in Johnson County's hands. Stutsman restated that she needs to have clarification from the ECICOG Board bylaws before this can be done. Neuzil replied that the County is going to determine the Johnson County representatives and those representatives are going to rank priority. Sullivan gave an example that if there is a request for a traffic study from the City of Tiffin then the request will have to go through Johnson County representatives. Neuzil added that this would be the same for the City of Iowa City.
Stutsman asked Johnson if Elliot will be attending the JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board meeting that night. Johnson said that he does not know for sure, but his impression was that Elliot was not attending. Sullivan remarked that the other piece of this issue is the JCCOG assessment. He premised his next statement with the idea that the County should not get into a tit for tat conflict. He said that the County needs to explore whether they get $40,000 worth of services from JCCOG. Stutsman mentioned that the $40,000 the County spends towards JCCOG will cover the City of Iowa City and City of Coralville ECICOG assessment cost that the County is going to incur.
Rettig responded that the County received money to go towards the Dubuque Street Trail project, not the full amount, but some money. Stutsman said that the County received around $500,000 or $750,000, but that it was Stimulus money. Neuzil commented that the Stimulus dollars would come through ECICOG, if the County was no longer a part of JCCOG. Rettig remarked that the County would then be competing with the whole ECICOG region. She added that the Board should not lose sight of the fact that being a part of JCCOG allows for a funding stream that might not have been as successful if it had to be applied regionwide. Neuzil agreed and said that if Johnson County pulls out of JCCOG, then the City of Iowa City will respond in a similar way and pull County representation out of the JCCOG Boards. Stutsman asked how the County benefits from JCCOG. Neuzil asked what the County gets from JCCOG that cannot be achieved through ECICOG. Sullivan responded that Stutsman has been participating in JCCOG for over ten years and that the grant for the extension of Oakdale Boulevard is the first money that the County has ever been awarded from JCCOG. Stutsman added that the County has also received funds for the Dubuque Street project. Sullivan stated that Oakdale was the first, and the only reason the County received that money was because it was a joint project with the City of Coralville. Stutsman agreed and said the City of Coralville could have applied for the grant on their own. Harney added that the County would not have gotten the money if JCCOG had not cancelled the Gilbert Street intersection project.
Neuzil said he would like to entertain the idea that the County may not have to participate in JCCOG, if the County is a full member of ECICOG. Harney asked if Elliot could talk with the Board at a meeting to go through the details for the County. Neuzil said that he is OK with that, but another option would to send the County representatives that are on the ECICOG Board. Stutsman stated that she is disappointed that $20,000 is leading to a tit for tat situation. She said it is unfortunate that the City of Iowa City is taking this route. Neuzil added with the current bottom line, the County is going to have to find the $20,000 from somewhere in the budget. It may have to come from the JCCOG budget. Stutsman reported that the County is having to make up for a shortfall in the City of Iowa City's budget once again. The County has managed their budget and is in pretty good shape. Neuzil reminded the Board that if the City of Iowa City no longer contributes, then they no longer have representation. Harney added that his question is about the consequences, who will represent, and who gets to vote.
Rettig reminded Stutsman that she is looking for direction for the meeting that night and remarked about the Board's unhappiness. She said that she needs a statement that breaks down of what the County pays for JCCOG and ECICOG and what funds are accessible from those relationships. She mentioned that she thinks the City of Iowa City receives funds through ECICOG, maybe not for transportation enhancements, but for services and housing. She added that now the County would be able to decide if their requests are submitted. Stutsman said that is something that needs to be clarified.
Sullivan remarked that, if a relationship like the one Johnson County and its incorporated cities has with ECICOG is unique, then it is either ahead or behind the times. By being the only ones that perform the assessments this way, Johnson County is way ahead. He remarked that he likes the fact that each community pays to be a part of it. Stutsman asked if Johnson County pays for the small communities. Sullivan said no, it goes through JCCOG. Harney said it should be under incorporated or unincorporated. Stutsman said that it should be based on the population. Sullivan stated that he likes the idea of paying on a population basis. Rettig reiterated the buy-in concept. She said that it would be the same taxpayers that are paying it in the first place, but that with a buy-in it is going through a community's own budgeting process.
Neuzil asked if the JCCOG Board representatives have enough information for that evening's meeting. Sullivan reminded the Board that Herwig will be providing information that night as well. He added that there is nothing preventing other Board members from sitting in the audience and he encouraged the Board members to go if they are free to do so. Rettig asked what time the meeting was. Sullivan answered 4:30 pm. Neuzil said that the Board will have to keep in mind that they are observers.
Neuzil asked about requests from libraries. Claiborne said that he only has one so far. Stutsman said that when she and Rettig went to the December 1, 2009, legislative group, the numbers are way up. She asked why the libraries have not submitted their requests. Claiborne remarked that they had not started very early this year. The libraries have a deadline from Claiborne in mid-December, which is the same as the last four years. Rettig reported that the City of Swisher is going to have a new library opening on December 15th with 1,067 volumes. She said that the library may not know that this option exists. Sullivan said that the Swisher Library does know about this and that they are working on it. Neuzil reminded the Board that current contracts state that the library must be accredited to be eligible for County funding. Stutsman stated that is true in regards to contract, but that block grants can be awarded to cities like Oxford or Tiffin. Rettig reported that the City of Tiffin library had gotten a block grant of $1,820 and it is not accredited. Sullivan stated that Jefferson-Monroe Friends of the Library Representative Laura Hoover was asking for help from the County for her unaccredited library. Neuzil said that this was identified by the Board as a strategic initiative in 2009, but will have to be completed next year. He stated the priority is to assess if this current split site method is something that the County wants to do, or if they should identify and focus on one library, like other counties do. Stutsman reminded the Board that the libraries were given a heads up regarding this assessment and that there are no guarantees that the current method will be upheld.
Neuzil stated that this is one of the areas that continue to become a larger and larger expense. Stutsman remarked that every library at the December 1, 2009, meeting said that their usage numbers are way up. She remarked that with the economy, libraries are being utilized more. Johnson said that the County Economic Development Committee did discuss this topic when it was assessed in 2003 and 2004. He reported that the Committee needs more direction to build from.
Neuzil remarked that if the County decides it is better to have a system of one rural library, then the Board needs to discuss how the County will get to that end point. The County will have to likely phase it in, so can we get by on the other libraries to do that. He said that this cannot be done in less than three or four months. Sullivan contributed the concept that in most states the library is a county function, because otherwise rural people get left out. Neuzil stated that in the current situation, a rural person has to go to three or four libraries, and the County gets charged each time they go. Stutsman commented that this is going to be a tough topic. Sullivan shared that he would like to know what other Iowa counties do. Stutsman speculated that Linn County supports the Cedar Rapids Library system. Neuzil said that this costs over $500,000. He concluded that it would be nice to know what the County is mandated to do regarding libraries. He remarked about whether rural residents will pay for a rural library card if they want to access a library.
Rettig asked about the current budget spreadsheet and whether the numbers for the libraries were just placeholders because only one request has been submitted so far. Claiborne said yes. Rettig asked how the numbers were arrived at now, whether it was by population, library usage, or no methodology. Stutsman and Neuzil stated that it was by contract, which is based on rural usage. Sullivan reported that the Solon Public Library's numbers are so high, because the people that attend school there do not actually live in the City of Solon, they live in rural areas. Stutsman informed Rettig that every time someone checks out a book at a library, then it is counted.
Stutsman said that during the County Economic Development Committee meeting, they felt that it will be a very controversial issue if the County decides to go a different route. She asked whether or not there is political will to proceed with this. Sullivan mentioned again that he would like to see what other peer counties do before he makes a decision on this. He said he would like to see other approaches and the pros and cons of those. Neuzil said that he would like to see a block grant, a certain amount of money that is divided up amongst the libraries that already exist. From that, the libraries can then determine a charge to rural residents. Stutsman remarked that method makes her nervous. She expressed concern that the cost to check out items will be very expensive. Neuzil explained that he would have a system where the County would make an investment of $200,000 to $300,000 and there would be a formula to divide up the funds. Another formula, based on the cost that is not covered by the grant, would determine what their fee for service would be.
Sullivan remarked that he would like to see some protection. He commented that one of the great things about libraries is that they are free. He said that there are people residing in the unincorporated areas of Johnson County that are poor. For example, if a library card at the North Liberty Community Library is going to cost $100 a year, there are people that do not get access to a publicly funded library. Neuzil said that those people can go to a library any time they want. Stutsman and Sullivan remarked that those people cannot check out anything. Neuzil said that he cannot go to the Coralville Public Library and check out something as an Iowa City resident without paying for it. Rettig said that he can, and reported that she has a Coralville Public Library card because they are part of an exchange program. She said she has a Cedar Rapids Public Library card as well. Harney remarked that there are some pretty big battles about whether their rural residents can use the libraries. Stutsman said that was her concern too. Sullivan reiterated that he would like to see some kind of protection for a poor kid in the unincorporated parts of Johnson County that wants to check out a book. Neuzil stated that goes back to County requirements by Code that one library is declared. He reminded the Board that the County has declared seven libraries. Stutsman replied that there are now almost eight.
Neuzil said the issue is whether the County wants to go back to a mandated library system and which library would want that. He said it might not be Iowa City Public Library or Coralville Public Library, and rural residents would need to travel to the Solon Public Library to check something out. Stutsman replied that there is also reciprocity between libraries. She explained that if Solon Public Library did not have a book, then they can get it from the Iowa City Public Library. Harney added that a step further would be to allow a kid to use the computer at the library. Neuzil said that right now a person can go to any library and use the computer. Sullivan remarked that this was why it is such a complex topic. Stutsman agreed and stated that if there are Board members that want to pursue this, then that was fine. Sullivan reiterated that he would like to know more about this topic before he makes that decision. He stated that the library contract came in before Sullivan did. Neuzil said that the request is going to be tens of thousands of dollars more at a time when the Board is asking every department to freeze their operating budget. He explained that the money for libraries is coming out of the rural fund, so if the Board wants to keep rural taxes at the same level, then the money is going to have to come out of Secondary Roads' budget. He said that this is a contract that the Board is going to have to pay for. Stutsman added that there is room in the rural side of the budget, but the Board is talking about patrol officers, too and how quickly the libraries will approach the limit. Harney said that is $600,000 and the libraries cannot go up more. Neuzil said that the total requests will be over $600,000. Sullivan asked if there were at least three Board members that have a desire to look at this topic after the budget season is over. He responded that it looks like there are at least three Board members interested.
Johnson said that he is sending the Board a packet of information from the Economic Development Committee that met in 2003 and 2004 regarding the Iowa City Public Library contract and the responses from the libraries. Neuzil said that the current contract states that whatever the libraries request, the County gives. Sullivan asked about the contract with Swisher Public Library. Stutsman recalled that the last time this topic was pursued there was a complete study and a lot of meetings. She said the Board then decided to leave the library system as it was. Neuzil stated that he was on that Library Task Force committee with Former Johnson County Board Member Carol Thompson. He recalled that the Iowa City Public Library presented the committee with information about how much money the Library is losing because rural residents are allowed to participate. He said this is why the committee backed off of the idea. He concluded that the Board is not going to get anywhere with this topic unless the Board finds a library that will take rural residents and rural residents will have to pay to go another library. Stutsman replied that the County could designate one rural library and if someone wants to use a different library, then they will be required to pay for that added access.
Rettig said that she realizes that this topic is not being fully discussed at this meeting, but that she wants to say that she has a problem with the idea that someone from Lone Tree would have to drive to Solon to check out a book. Neuzil stated that the current library system for rural residents costs $600,000 in the current set up. He recalled that the Board backed off of any change because at the time it was a very unpopular political decision, particularly to pull money out of any library. Harney responded that he would rather have a kid in a library than on a street in downtown Iowa City. He stated that the library access gives the kid an option if there is something for him to do. Sullivan said maybe the County will pay for this, but that he wants to see study the options first. Stutsman offered the idea that maybe there will be a northern designated library, a southern designated library, and then one in the middle. She said maybe the County will not fund all the libraries, but will maintain contracts with some of them.
Rettig said that the Board should be continually studying this topic of where the County fits in and the possible fee structure. She concluded that designating a library in Solon for all of the residents of the unincorporated parts of the County to use is a problem for her. Neuzil said that is what almost every other county does now. Stutsman noted that it is interesting what the mandated amount is and how far beyond Johnson County is past that mandated amount. Neuzil recalled that the past mandated requirement was $6,300 or $4,000 and the County was paying over $400,000 at that point. He disclosed that this is from the 2004 information, but that Neuzil is not aware of the amount now. He noted that the money comes out of the rural fund.
Sullivan asked if the Board wants to address the request from the Swisher Public Library. Stutsman asked how much the Swisher Public Library requested. Sullivan said that there was an informal request and Hoover was told to address the request to Claiborne, but Hoover has not done that yet. Neuzil said that it is not a request if the Swisher Public Library has not requested anything. He remarked that it is not open yet. Rettig said that it will be open six months before the FY10 budget goes into effect. Stutsman informed the Board that she was told at the meeting on December 1, 2009, that Iowa City Public Library budget is going to be cut. The Iowa City Public Library has not heard it officially, but it is anticipated. Neuzil instructed Claiborne to remind the libraries to make their requests.
General Basic Block Grant (20)
Neuzil stated that the Board is now going to discuss line 29, the Senior Center. Sullivan said he thought the Senior Center was under Correia and Social Services. Neuzil said the Board did not do that officially yet. He reported that the Senior Center is a category that has not been assigned a department. He said the Board had not decided yet if it falls under Correia within the General Basic or Economic Development and Quality of Life Block Grants. He asked the rest of the Board if the Senior Center Commission has made a request. Claiborne said no and that a lot of these are recurring, unless he receives a change request. Neuzil remarked that the Board should communicate with the Senior Center Commission, Commission Chair and Attorney Jay Honohan used to give the Board reports. Sullivan said that it is another $75,000 granted to a department in the City of Iowa City, when the City of Iowa City is asking the County to cover their $20,000 ECICOG assessment costs. Neuzil summarized that nothing changes for the Senior Center budget item.
Neuzil continued with item number 33. He remarked that he had gotten a message from Workplace Learning Connection Director Mary Lou Erlacher on December 1, 2009. He reported that she will be forwarding a request to the Board, Claiborne or the Economic Development Committee. Stutsman said that the Board is not to the point of nailing down their criteria. She said that this will have to be decided by the Board this year. Neuzil asked if it is OK for Erlacher to attend an informal meeting. Stutsman asked if the Workplace Learning Connection's budget it based on per capita. Neuzil stated that she wanted to come to a meeting to give her annual report. He responded that the formula is based on population and based on the Census, which will change after this 2010.
Sullivan asked about the data in line number 45, it says four years starting 2006 to 2009, but in 2009 there is not anything. Neuzil responded that the County paid it off ahead of time. He inquired if there are any more Community Attraction and Tourism (CAT) grants left out there that the County has to make a contribution for. Stutsman asked if there are any that the County is committed to. She said that the Sand Lake project never went. Neuzil said it is now called the Terry Trueblood project. Stutsman said that she does not have a problem with the tourism, if that is going to allow for leveraging of the grant. Harney noted that the grant is $500.
Neuzil asked how many years the County has left. Rettig stated that the line number is 49 and it does not say how many years. Stutsman and Sullivan responded that line number 49 is an annual membership. Neuzil said it would be the last year for line number 50. Rettig asked what the project is. Neuzil said it is a $100,000 capital improvements to Iowa City Area Development (ICAD) to jump start their funding. Stutsman recalled that Harney told the Board that ICAD will be attending a Board meeting to present another request. Harney said he thought ICAD was going to, but that he has not had a meeting with them yet. Stutsman remarked to not ask them. Rettig said ICAD is below on line 51, so what is line 50. Sullivan reported that 50 is a capital campaign and line 51 is the annual dues. Stutsman added that it was a fundraising campaign.
Johnson reported that the Board should add the dues to the Visitors and Convention Bureau. Neuzil asked what the amount is. Johnson replied $250.00. Neuzil asked if that was something that the Board officially approved. Stutsman said that one of the Board members is on the Iowa City/Coralville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. Rettig asked if the County pays dues to the Chamber of Commerce. Neuzil said that membership is under section 18, Central Services. Sullivan said that he thinks the Chamber of Commerce dues should be in the budget with the other memberships. Neuzil said that it is strange that the Chamber of Commerce falls under 18, Central Services. Sullivan said he was thinking the same thing the other day with the $600 Chamber of Commerce membership. Stutsman said that it was put under section 18 because everyone in the County becomes a member, Central Services is a catch all.
Rettig asked if the National and State of Iowa Association of Counties memberships are also under section 20. Stutsman replied that those are under section 18, Central Services, because that benefits all departments. Sullivan stated that it is considered County government; whereas the Chamber of Commerce is not. Stutsman said that it might be time to move the Chamber of Commerce membership dues line item.
Neuzil asked the Board if they are comfortable adding the Iowa City/Coralville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau request for $250 line item. Sullivan asked Johnson if that was the correct amount, he thinks it is $500. Johnson said he thought it was $250. Neuzil asked again if the Board is OK with adding it to the budget, either way.
Neuzil stated that he does not see any changes with Iowa City Area Development (ICAD). Stutsman said that as long as ICAD puts Johnson County in their brochure. She said she wonders if the criterion for that request is $25,000.
Neuzil continued with item number 52. He said it was a line item for incidentals. Stutsman gave an example of how it is used, such as when Johnson County Historical Society President Shaner Magalhaes came in for a $1,000 request for brochures. Rettig clarified that the Board meant this was a miscellaneous item. Stutsman said that this money was set aside for the out of budget requests. Sullivan added that the requests for this money must fit the County's strategic plan for items that the County does not have already budgeted for.
Neuzil asked if the Johnson County Historical Society has made a request yet. Johnson said that Magalhaes had called to ask about that and was going to be sending an email. Stutsman said that she would like to see the Johnson County Historical Society continue with the same budget, maybe even less. Neuzil said that he does not see the Board putting any additional money into this line item since the Board did not do it for any other block grants. Stutsman remarked that the County is contributing to the Johnson County Historical Society's capital campaign.
Sullivan said on line 54, the Johnson County Historical Preservation Group has now been rejuvenated and had a question about copying fees and mailing fees. He said it would seem to him that it does make sense to have something on that line, even if it is just $100. Stutsman said that she would prefer to take it out of something else. She remarked that she would hate to tax for something if the Board does not even know if they want the money. Neuzil stated that they had requested it, but that it looks like their proposed process for mailing is to drop it off at the Board Office and then the Board Office will mail it out for them.
Johnson said that he is attending their meeting on December 3, 2009, to find out what their questions are and to get answers. He remarked that it seemed like every other board or commission is tied to a department and the Historical Preservation Group is alone. Sullivan responded that Planning and Zoning has a lot of mailing and copying for persons out of the department. Johnson agreed that Secondary Roads has a lot of mailing too, but he does not know that it is an issue for the Johnson County Planning Council for Mental Health and Disability Services Department. Johnson continued and said that if the Historical Preservation Group's request is just a matter of periodic mailings and some copying then they can just do it at the Board Office. Stutsman said she would rather do that than add another line item. Neuzil agreed but would like to see what their request is. He added that doing this means that it comes out of the Board's budget. Sullivan said that he wants to acknowledge that the Historical Preservation Group has real expenses. Stutsman remarked that she wants to avoid someone discovering the money in the budget and then spending it frivolously merely because it exists. She would rather assume that those expenses are grandfathered in under the Board of Supervisors for copies and miscellaneous. Neuzil reiterated that he would like to see what they request.
Harney said that he had gotten information about a new project concerning one room schoolhouses. Stutsman explained that the Johnson County Historical Society was doing that project, and the Historical Preservation Group is not a part of that group. Neuzil stated that the Historical Preservation Group meets once a month in the break room of the Johnson County Administration Building. Stutsman said that is great, but at a time when budgets are being cut; it is not a good time to begin asking the Historical Preservation Group to start new projects. Neuzil agreed and clarified that he just thinks the Historical Preservation Group should not have to pay for postage. Stutsman agreed and said that things of that nature should go through the Board Office. Neuzil thanked Johnson for planning on going to their meeting to ask questions.
Neuzil continued with line 55, which he said is a commitment through 2013. He asked if the folks at the Fairgrounds have submitted any budget information to the Board. Johnson said that the Block Grant amount has been the same for a number of years. The Fairgrounds did indicate they might be asking for more, however, the Board Office has not yet received a request. Neuzil stated that the Board has not increased anyone else's budgets so far. He referred to line 66 and asked if the Board is comfortable with it. Sullivan asked Neuzil to back up to line 63. He asked if they had made a request. Stutsman replied no, they have not. She suggested that the Board contact Iowa Valley Resource Conservation and Development Coordinator Christine Taliga about a request. Neuzil asked if the Board had used the Rural Enterprise Fund for this group in the past. Stutsman said that the request will most likely be for Local Food Project Associate Jason Grimm's salary, which Linn County helps to pay for as well. Linn County has a grant for it, but the grant is running out. Neuzil said that he remembers that conversation.
Sullivan asked if a request has been placed for line 64. Stutsman asked if line 64 was a Community Attraction and Tourism (CAT) grant match. Neuzil said that he thinks it is. Stutsman asked for the other Board members to clarify if it was a $5,000 and for how many years. Neuzil said that it is a $20,000 commitment. Stutsman remarked that she does not remember them coming in and asking. Sullivan and Harney replied that they did. Harney remarked that it had gotten delayed and now it is a go again. Stutsman said that she is hesitating to fund another Community Attraction and Tourism (CAT) grant. She said that it is a slippery slope of everyone coming to the County with a project to fund. Sullivan said that he is confused, because he thought the Board had made this a commitment. Claiborne informed the Board that he had made a list of the items that he was waiting on for FY10. This particular request did not pan out, which is why this group is listed as $0 and $0 in their budget. He said that there was originally a budget number in there, but at the last minute they pulled out their grant request. Neuzil reported that line 64 is still alive, so the Board needs to do a follow-up from Coralville. Stutsman added that the Board should follow up only if they applied for a CAT grant. Sullivan clarified only if they have been awarded a CAT grant. Stutsman confirmed that Sullivan was right. She added that the Board bases funding contingent on being awarded the grant. Harney reiterated that they came in and the Board committed to it. Neuzil stated that he remembers that they were awarded a CAT grant. He also recalled being at an event with Sullivan where the group thanked everyone except for the County. He said that the Board needs to follow up, but does believe that they had made a four year, $5,000 commitment.
Neuzil revisited 66 and asked if the Board has any interest in keeping it in the budget. Rettig said that she is not aware of what it is. Neuzil said the Entrepreneurial Development Center (EDC) made a request for the County to make a contribution of $25,000 towards the Center which creates different economic development projects for programs primarily in the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids corridor, but mostly in Linn County. Rettig said that she was actually in attendance for that meeting. She recalled that at the end of that the EDC thought that they would be self-sufficient. Neuzil remarked that there had been other requests stating that if EDC was going to be eligible for this funding, then Small Business Development Center Regional Director Paul Heath wanted to ask for some funds. He added that there was a list of others with similar economic development fund requests. Sullivan said that request is what the County funds Iowa City Area Development (ICAD) at, what the County funds the Crisis Center at, and is significant. Neuzil stated that at this time he would like to remove the EDC item. Harney asked why the spreadsheet says FY11 through FY14. Neuzil responded that was EDC's capital campaign request.
Stutsman remarked that she would like to put some money in for the EDC, so that Johnson County is a part of it. She expressed her belief that it was an exciting initiative, even more so than ICAD. She said that it does not center just on businesses, but starting up entrepreneurial-type businesses, such as Bochner's Chocolates. Neuzil noted that there have been benefits for Johnson County. Sullivan explained that he felt it is out of scale. Stutsman agreed, but said that she does not mind putting $5,000 in for a commitment from Johnson County. She observed that the EDC was very involved in Linn County, but the EDC wants to move toward the Johnson County end of the corridor. Now the EDC is asking for a buy-in from Johnson County and Iowa City. Neuzil responded that if the County is going to fund the EDC, then the County should allow for the other economic development groups that were asking for similar commitments to come in. Rettig mentioned that it is same level of funding given to ICAD. Neuzil said that the County gives money to ICAD specifically to be the County's voice for economic development.
Sullivan said that he has issues with taking property tax dollars and sinking it into the EDC or ICAD, when the first thing they are going to do is come to the City of Iowa City or City of Coralville with a request for a tax increment financing (TIF) district. Therefore, the very first thing the County is helping out is a 20 year TIF that will be renewed. Basically, Johnson County does not collect a penny on the increment from then on. He concluded that EDC or ICAD may not be a good use of County tax dollars. Stutsman agreed but remarked that Sullivan has concerns about programs that help a business build or set up. She observed that the EDC was more about helping an entrepreneur develop a project, not regarding capital investments in a building. She said the EDC assists projects at the incubator stage. Sullivan said that he worries about the County spending tax dollars, so that the County can never get another tax dollar. Neuzil commented about the needs of the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) regional office and the Pappajohn Entrepreneurial Center, which also work at the incubator level by bringing these businesses into our community. Stutsman asked how many businesses the SBDC is bringing into Johnson County as opposed to the entire State of Iowa. Neuzil deduced that the results of the SBDC would be a whole lot more than the EDC. He reiterated that if the Board is going to open up this pot of money, then he would like to entertain others to come in and present their requests as well. Stutsman expressed that she has a problem with the SBDC and Pappajohn Entrepreneurial Center, because they are affiliated with the University of Iowa. Neuzil commented that EDC is also, because they get a large amount of money from the University of Iowa and Oakdale.
Rettig remarked that if the Board is going to have a commitment to economic development, then she does not have a problem with it. She stated that her problem is that each of these organizations should have a fair shot to compete for the money. Sullivan suggested that the Board put a certain amount of money in a line item towards Entrepreneurialism and then the Board can hear from all of them. Neuzil noted that the Economic Development Committee could sort it out. Rettig said it could be a formal grant request or block grant request form that is scored and judged, awarded or not. Neuzil said what the Board has done in the past is requested no additional requests. He remarked that the Board just added $250, but that is not a very considerable amount. He asked if a line should be added for the Economic Development Committee beyond that. Stutsman asked if the Board should expand that to $10,000 for example. Neuzil mentioned that there is an opportunity for an additional $20,000 after FY11 when the ICAD capital campaign money is no longer budgeted. Stutsman said that the Board should create a $10,000 placeholder now for an entrepreneurial grant. Sullivan suggested that the Board change the name of the line item to Entrepreneurialism. Stutsman clarified that this is so the money is now not targeted specifically to the EDC. Sullivan said this is so the Economic Development Committee can decide how the money is to be spent.
Neuzil concluded that Claiborne should erase EDC on the line, add the term Entrepreneurial Projects instead and $10,000 with a reminder when the Board gets the full list of potential tax increases. Claiborne asked if this is $10,000 over a string of years. Neuzil said no, just $10,000.
Rettig asked why the Shelter House was not discussed, number 67. Neuzil reported that it was at $0. Stutsman inquired if Shelter House had gotten their money from the State of Iowa. Rettig clarified that it had been removed because of the grant. Neuzil stated that Shelter House had made that request a few years ago. Rettig mentioned the Rebuild Iowa money. Sullivan said that it was at a time when Shelter House was not sure if they were going to build and now they can.
Neuzil reminded the Board that the next budget meeting is December 7, 2009, at 9:00 am. Rettig asked if anything in the tally sheet has changed since last week. Claiborne responded that there were a few things. Secondary Roads sent Claiborne a written policy of department uses for maintenance and County Engineer Greg Parker did send a menu of different funding levels, which has been sent to the Board. Shueyville road bonding will come up towards the end of the County's budget cycle. Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek is asking for four deputies utilizing the money saved from dispatch. The Board had asked if the County can charge a booking or boarding fee for prisoners.
The Board had requested a numerical tally sheet that Claiborne reviewed. For the new personnel, there is a medical examiner supervisor, which the Board approved; for Ambulance there are two full-time employee upgrades at $76,000. Sullivan clarified that it is worth two full-time employee equivalents, but affects 4.5 positions. Claiborne confirmed that it is upgrades of existing positions. Sullivan said that Ambulance Department Director Steve Spenler had hired four new part-time on-call employees. Claiborne said that Spenler had told Claiborne that there are no new hires, but that existing employees now will receive more hours.
Claiborne continued and stated that Conservation Director Harry Graves has a new half-time office assistant, there is a new case expediter for County Attorney Janet Lyness, and there is the request for the patrol deputies from Pulkrabek.
Adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary