MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DECEMBER 17, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Mercedes Bern-Klug: Senior Center Update
County Attorney Janet Lyness: Reports and Inquiries
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson: Reports and Inquiries
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors
Reports and Inquiries from the Public
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 9:11 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Senior Center Commission Member, University of Iowa Aging Studies Director, and Assistant Professor of Social Work Mercedes Bern-Klug reported that a lot of University of Iowa students have an interest in working with older adults and have an opportunity to do their field work at the Senior Center. She acknowledged that there is a nice collaboration between the academics in the Social Work department at the University of Iowa and the local Senior Center.
Bern-Klug thanked the Board for funding the Senior Center. She said this fall the Senior Center is continuing with the self assessment process, with the most recent activity being the strategic planning Steering Committee meeting. She reported that a Purpose and Planning group came together and reconsidered the core values and goals of the Senior Center for the duration of the next five years. She noted that she furnished the Board with a list of these. She said the primary value that the group came up with is for optimal aging. She explained that the Senior Center is going to take this concept of optimal aging and work with the community to try to change the image of what it means to age in our county. She added that this stigma associated with aging is at the root of some of the problems that older adults encounter. She said another core value is engagement with the larger community, including the area outside of Iowa City. One of the big activities that is being planned to address this value is the April 2010 Health Fair at the Johnson County Fairgrounds. She added that the Senior Center will strive to continue to have chronic illness information around Johnson County and will continue to maintain that community outreach is a priority.
Bern-Klug announced that the spring call for classes has just come in. These classes are an amazing collection of activities and educational opportunities that members of the public are willing to share with the community. She said all of these opportunities will be pulled together and published in January 2010. R. Sullivan said that he was invited to serve on the Steering Committee. He said there are a lot of people in the community that are contributing to the evaluation and so he thinks a good product is going to come out of it. Bern-Klug agreed that there is a deliberate attempt to get a lot of differing perspectives engaged in this process.
Neuzil said that Parker will be discussing the Federal Aid Highway Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) Funding Agreement with the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) for project BROS-CO52(82)-5F-52 of the Sharon Center Road bridge replacement over Old Man's Creek. Parker reported that this is a standard agreement that Secondary Roads brings forward to the Board for their consideration. This HBRRP Funding Agreement is completed for any construction project that Secondary Roads wants to utilize Federal funds for. He explained that Secondary Roads wants to access Federal bridge funds for this project. This project would include the Sharon Center Road bridges as referenced, just south of Highway 1. He acknowledged that this project has been in the Five Year Road Construction Program for a long time. Therefore, now is the time to get this Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) agreement approved so that Secondary Roads can access the 80% funding available for the project. He added that 20% needs to be matched by the County for the total construction project, as part of the agreement. He explained that the 20% can originate from different fund sources, for example Farm-to-Market funds or local construction funds.
Parker reminded the Board that IDOT has frozen the Farm-to-Market funds through April 2010 if governmental agencies are below the specific dollar amount that IDOT has set. He reported that Johnson County has not approached that dollar amount yet. He added that there is a possibility that the County may be put into a freeze due to the funds from the Stimulus projects that had been let in October. He said Secondary Roads is still proceeding with the project as though the Farm-to-Market funds are still available to the County. He said Secondary Roads is waiting for official notice from IDOT that the County is not eligible for additional Farm-to-Market funds before Secondary Roads will consider stalling the project. He remarked that if that happens, Parker will bring the HBRRP Funding Agreement back to the Board for their consideration. For now, Secondary Roads will continue to work on the design and construction of this project, as referenced.
Neuzil asked Parker if he will need Board approval. Parker confirmed this and said that his recommendation would be to place this business item on the December 22, 2010, Formal Meeting's agenda for the Board's consideration. R. Sullivan asked if the total cost for the project is $1.1 million. Parker said yes, the current construction estimate for the project is $1.1 million, which makes the 80% match $880,000 and the difference becomes the responsibility of the County. R. Sullivan remarked that he did not realize that the Sharon Center Road bridge project was quite so expensive.
Stutsman asked if the bridge will be in the same alignment as before. Parker said yes, the alignment for the replacement bridge will be the same as the existing alignment. There was some discussion of shifting the placement to the downside stream, but it was decided to just keep it in the same alignment. He explained that the disadvantage of doing this is that the bridge will be shut down for three to six months or possibly longer. Stutsman asked if Parker means that the bridge will be completely shut down. Parker stated yes, totally shut down during construction. Stutsman asked Parker to give an estimate of how many months this will take. Parker said that Secondary Roads will anticipate that it will take anywhere from three to six months, once the project is let. Stutsman remarked that Sharon Center Road is well used, so the closed down bridge is going to inconvenience a lot of people.
R. Sullivan recalled the prior discussion with Parker about the possibility of realigning the bridge. He remembered that Parker had said if the bridge alignment stays the same then the approaches have to change because of the curves and hills on Sharon Center Road. He asked if the $1.1 million construction cost includes having to change the approaches. Parker replied that the bridge design is not completely done yet. He added that if the bridge is kept in the same alignment, then the road alignment will not change. He explained that Secondary Roads will most likely just pave out 1,000 or 2,000 feet from the bridge structure. R. Sullivan asked if Secondary Roads will have to do any straightening of the road. Parker answered no, it will look the same when driving down Sharon Center Road. He said it will be a new, wider bridge and it will not continue to have any of the limitations that the existing bridge has.
Neuzil confirmed that the Sharon Center Road project Federal Aid HBRRP Funding Agreement item will be placed on the December 22, 2010, Board Formal Meeting agenda for consideration and a vote.
Neuzil announced that the next item to discuss is in regards to a 28E Project Agreement with the City of Coralville for Engineering Design and Construction Management for Improvements on Oakdale Boulevard Extension. He asked if this 28E Project Agreement is clean-up work. Parker responded that it is in regards to something that Secondary Roads has the availability to use effectively. This 28E Project Agreement is an addition to the existing 28E Agreement that the County has with the City of Coralville. He noted that this is Assistant County Engineer Alan Miller's project. He said Miller has worked with Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell and City of Coralville Attorney Don Diehl or Kevin Olson on the language in this 28E Project Agreement.
Parker informed the Board that wetland credits have been made available to Johnson County for purchase. He said that Johnson County has had to create, monitor, and manage wetlands for a specified period of time in order to satisfy past project wetlands mitigation requirements. The Corps of Engineers now allow different entities, such as government agencies, to purchase wetland credits. He explained that the purchase of wetland credits means that the County would now be paying someone else in Tama County to maintain nine acres of wetlands. He said the purchase costs a total of $270,000 and will be split by the County and the City of Coralville at a price of $135,000 each. He said that once the wetland credits are purchased, the County has no further responsibility towards the wetlands. He explained that it is good from one standpoint because the permitting process can now be expedited through the Corps of Engineers. This is because the entity in Tama County that owns the wetlands is a certified wetlands mitigation proprietary activity on land that they have set aside and has already been approved through the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, all of these required approval processes have been taken care of. He reported that all Johnson County has to do is negotiate a price for the nine acres of credited land. Parker confirmed that this is what he recommends, due to the process being easier to complete and the permits being approved faster.
Harney said his concern with this suggestion is that the money would be leaving Johnson County to benefit Tama County. He asked if there was any process that could keep that money in Johnson County. Parker replied that the Corps of Engineers approves specific entities and locations for Johnson County to buy wetland credits from. He said this was the location that was presented to the County for purchase.
Rettig asked Parker if the Corps of Engineers selects properties in areas that need wetlands. Parker replied that he does not have all the information on how the Corps of Engineers sets this process up. He said he assumes the Corps of Engineers takes applications from prospective entities that will set up and manage wetlands. These prospects go through a review and approval process. The Corps of Engineers comes up with a list of locations that governmental agencies can purchase wetlands properties. He said it is set up as a payment, so that the County itself does not have to actually create and manage the wetlands, which would be more expensive to do. Parker said he does not know exactly how much cheaper it is to purchase wetland credits.
Rettig acknowledged that wetlands on the Iowa River in Tama County help all counties because they help to diminish the propensity for flooding. She stated her opposition to the purchase of wetland credits if they will go to an area of the state that does not help Johnson County at all. She said that the County has an existing need to impact and slow down the water in Johnson County. She concluded that the purchase of wetlands in another area is bad policy if it does not help Johnson County. She said that the benefit of expediting the overall process is not enough of a reason to be sending money somewhere else. She explained that there are areas in Johnson County that should be wetlands, as demonstrated by the flooding events during 2008 and 2009. Rettig told Parker that she needs more information about this issue over the next week.
Stutsman asked if the Coralville City Council has agreed to this and signed off on the 28E Project Agreement. Parker replied that the Coralville City Council has agreed, but that he is not sure if the Coralville City Council has signed off on the 28E Project Agreement. Chappell responded that he is not sure if the Coralville City Council has had actual formal consideration of the 28E Project Agreement yet. He said that their council has agreed to it already. He said the only reason that the 28E Project Agreement needs to change is because the original 28E Project Agreement indicated that the wetlands would be created on public ground that the City of Coralville owns. He said it was a good idea at the time, because then neither the County nor the City of Coralville would have to buy any new land for the wetlands mitigation requirement. This translated into some cost savings for the County. He said Miller and Coralville City Engineer Dan Holderness did a calculation of how much it would cost to convert the public ground into wetlands, which was in excess of $300,000 up front. This cost did not include the maintenance of the wetlands to Department of Natural Resources (DNR) standards, for example the replacement of trees that do not survive. He said the purchase of wetland credits is a faster process, especially since DNR approvals are currently being pushed back due to the Stimulus funds. This is because the Stimulus fund projects are being moved up DNR's list in order to receive expedited approval. He added that the purchase of wetland credits is also cheaper, but he is not sure exactly how much cheaper. He said the only reason that Secondary Roads needs to change the existing 28E Agreement is because it specifically spells out that the wetlands will be built on City of Coralville public ground and the County will split the cost of it with the City of Coralville.
Stutsman asked if this makes the decision more of the City of Coralville's call. Chappell disagreed, and said it is both the City and the County's call, because both entities have to cover the costs. He said that he does not know if the City of Coralville considers this to be a better deal for the City or not. He said that if the City really wanted wetlands on the previously chosen location, then maybe it is a lesser deal because they do not get one. R. Sullivan said that from a cost benefit analysis, nobody has been flooded any worse than Coralville. If anybody needs wetlands on the west side of the city, it is Coralville. He asked if there is such a place that the City and County can put wetlands to help mitigate the flooding threat for Coralville, because then it would make more sense to keep the wetlands local.
Stutsman said that when the Oakdale Boulevard extension was originally proposed there was an alignment that had been determined already. She recalled that the City of Coralville and the County redid the alignment. She asked former Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Director Jeff Davidson if there would have been an impact on the adjoining wetlands if the original alignment was preserved. Davidson said the alignment in the original agreement was merely conceptual. He said it was based on what is called a planning level analysis, which does not involve much engineering. The present alignment represents a final engineering of the project. He acknowledged that at the initial level of analysis, the Oakdale Boulevard extension may not have impacted the wetlands as much. He said that the result of the initial level of analysis was then automatically furthered by engineering properties, as well as other factors, to warrant the change in alignment. Chappell said that his recollection is that any of the three to five routes that were considered were all going to have varying, but significant, levels of impact on the wetlands. He said this project is basically putting a road through a very swampy piece of ground. Davidson agreed that Oakdale Boulevard could not be extended without any impact on the wetlands. He recalled that it goes through the Muddy Creek flood plain. Chappell said that a lot of the debate was between two choices. Either of the projects was going to entail a bigger structure and pilings in the water, a bigger fill, or a mix of the two. He said that the road cannot be built without utilizing the wetlands property.
Parker confirmed that each one of the alignments did impact wetlands. He said that some of the alignments certainly impacted the wetlands more. He reported that he does not have the numbers with him at the meeting, but can get them to the Board if requested. He said the final alignment that was chosen, that is being designed for and ready to go based on permits, has an impact on the wetlands. He said that the guidelines require the County to create wetlands, which was the option outlined in the original 28E Agreement, or to purchase wetland credits, which is a new option within the past two years. He said that his guess is that the Corps of Engineers is allowing this new mitigation tactic because the existing management of wetlands is not controlled the way the Corps of Engineers would like. The governmental agencies can take advantage of the wetland credits model by either purchasing the credits or creating the wetlands for sale of credits. He reiterated that he did not bring the financial deferential, the cost of wetlands construction versus wetland credits, with him to the meeting, but confirmed that construction is costlier.
R. Sullivan reported that he is not looking to delay this project any further, but at the same time he would like to see what the difference in cost is, to know more about the wetland credits program, and to make sure that the City of Coralville has the same information, so that he knows that the Board and the City Council are working off of the same input. Parker confirmed that the Coralville City Council has the same information as the County. He said there may have been discussions with the City of Coralville in regards to creating the existing wetlands on the land they have set aside. He continued that maybe the City of Coralville decided that the purchase of wetland credits is a better route because they may want to use that public land for another project. He said the property may still be turned into wetlands, but would be a 100% City of Coralville project. He said there was a discussion of that in the past.
Harney reported that Conservation has created and managed wetlands at Kent Park in the past and so these wetlands should be kept within Johnson County if possible. Rettig added Conservation just bought wetlands on both sides of Clear Creek and are attempting to acquire additional wetlands along Clear Creek all the way to Kent Park. She explained that she needs to understand where the wetland credits will go and if Johnson County gets any ecological benefit from it. She reiterated that just because the wetland credits process will be quicker, does not mean that the purchase of wetland credits become the responsible use of County money. Stutsman reiterated that it is not only quicker, but less expensive to pursue the wetland credits. R. Sullivan said that buying land in Tama County may indeed reduce flooding risk in Johnson County, but he would like to know that the wetland is connected to the Iowa River somehow. He said that Johnson County's wetland in Kent Park does not necessarily mitigate potential flooding in the urban areas. He reported that he would like the wetlands mitigation method chosen for this project to help Johnson County.
Stutsman asked whether or not the City of Coralville will be responsible for maintaining the wetlands, if the County requested that the wetlands remain in Johnson County. Parker said that it would remain as it was written in the original 28E Agreement, which was set up as a joint cost, so both Coralville and Johnson County would share the cost. Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak asked if the guidelines require that natural wetlands be used during the mitigation process, or if manmade wetlands can be used. He said that he has been involved in six to ten wetlands creations along the Iowa River in Johnson County. If the guidelines require natural wetlands, then it is a moot point. Neuzil said that may be another question to have answered. Chappell replied that the answer must be yes, because the proposal is to build wetlands, which is why the cost is over $300,000. Parker said that a study has to be completed in order to determine if a piece of land can be a good source for wetlands. If it has been determined that there is specific land that can be turned into wetlands, then it has to be constructed and maintained as a wetlands for a set period of time. Dvorak reported that just prior to the meeting he had gotten a call from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to gain permission to start construction of a wetlands south of Iowa City on the Iowa River. He remarked that this might be good timing.
Neuzil concluded that this topic could remain on the agenda of another Informal Board Meeting for additional discussion because Parker may not have enough time to provide the Board with the requested information prior to the next Formal Board Meeting on December 22, 2009. Parker said that this 28E Agreement approval does not need to be done immediately. He said that it can be taken care of in January 2010, so that he can have more time to gather information. He offered to engage in more communication with the Board, if any additional questions should arise.
Dvorak reported that he had invited Iowa City Planning and Community Development Director Jeff Davidson and Iowa City Associate Planner Karen Howard to accompany him to the meeting. Davidson informed the Board that he will be presenting a proposed voluntary annexation of 132 acres into the City of Iowa City. This was requested by the Moss Green Development Corporation, and the land to be annexed consists of a portion of the Moss family farm. He explained that the farm is bisected by Interstate 80. Old Dubuque Road includes the farmstead where there was a farming operation until recently. He said there is a large area west of the National Computer Systems (NCS) Pearson property that has been farmed by the Moss family for some time. They gain access to the farm through the front of the NCS Pearson property. He said that the notion of access to the property has been an issue for anywhere from 15 to 25 years. He explained that the City of Iowa City has been refereeing between NCS Pearson and the Moss family during that time in regards to who was obligated to provide what. What has been in place is an agricultural only access for farming the area west of NCS Pearson.
Davidson presented that the proposal is to annex this Moss family farm property and also an adjoining property owned by Neal N Llewellyn and the Catherine Chase Trust. This additional property will be annexed to allow for access to the Moss family property. He added that five years ago it was determined that NCS Pearson did not have any obligation to provide any access to the Moss property through the NCS Pearson property. The only exception was that NCS Pearson must allow access to the agricultural operation of the Moss property. He said this is significant in terms of how access will be provided for a land use other than for agricultural purposes. He reminded the Board that JCCOG helped to create an agreement between Johnson County, City of Coralville and the City of Iowa City for the future extension of Oakdale Boulevard. He explained that the purpose of this agreement is to preserve the corridor of a future major arterial street. He said that the reason for this process is to prevent a person from building a house or barn on the future alignment of the street, because the land will need to be acquired at the time that this arterial is extended. Therefore, the three government entities established the 28E Agreement to establish where the road will go, which extends from Dubuque Street moving eastward to intersect with Scott Boulevard. The developer that has requested the annexation intends to designate the land for a mixed use office and research park, similar in character to Northgate Corporate Park or Oakdale Research Park in Coralville. He stated that the City of Iowa City does not exactly know if this is the case, so there is no drafted proposal to illustrate what the potential office park would look like. This is something that is still being worked on with the developer.
Davidson continued to explain the proposed annexation and rezoning for the property. He reported that this property would be rezoned from the existing County Agriculture zone to the Iowa City Interim Development zone. This zone is chosen for this property by the City of Iowa because it is favorable for the City of Iowa City to consider annexation of the property, but the property is not ready to be redeveloped. The zone designation of Interim Development does not allow anything to be built for the time being on the property. He explained that the developer must request a rezoning action to be zoned for development when the property is ready for an office and research park.
Davidson confirmed that the proposal is consistent with the City of Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. This future land use is consistent with the priority of the City of Iowa City to grow the commercial and industrial tax base, which the Iowa City City Council adopted as part of the Economic Development strategies. He concluded that the Iowa City Planning Department feels that this annexation is consistent with the City Council's goal. He said the Northgate Corporate Park across North Dodge Street from the proposed annexation, is almost built out. There are a couple of other areas in Iowa City that are zoned as Interim Development, but one property owner is not interested in developing and another property owner is in the same situation, where the parcel does not have the necessary infrastructure available to develop at this time. The necessary infrastructure would include sewer and water extensions, as well as road access. He reported that the City of Iowa City sees the annexation of this focus property as a positive action, with the intention being to retain enough property zoned for this use.
Davidson reminded the Board that there is a growth area boundary around the City of Iowa City. This growth boundary designates the land that can be serviced by City of Iowa City utilities for future development. He reported that the property is almost entirely inside of the growth area boundary, but will require minimal adjustment during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. He recalled the annexation of the industrial park, when a similar adjustment had to be made to accommodate the annexed land. He said the City of Iowa City feels that it is in their best interest to control development of this area, so that the land use and future development continues to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Oakdale Boulevard 28E Project Agreement. Therefore, the support of the Iowa City Planning Department and subsequent recommendation for approval for this annexation is derived from three indicators. One is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, another is consistency with the Growth Area Boundary, and the third is the City of Iowa City's desire to control the development of the area.
Davidson reported that he and Howard would be happy to answer any questions that the Board could have about the eventual development plan that is currently in progress. He reported that an agreement has been reached with the developer, which designates that the future access to the annexed property should be provided by the eventual extension of Oakdale Boulevard. This is somewhat problematic because the City of Iowa City does not have a single dime programmed for the extension of the necessary infrastructure to the parcels or for the extension of Oakdale Boulevard at this time. He explained that this lack of funds for the land preparation required prior to development is the reason for the designation of Interim Development zone. This zone requires that there is a resolution to the infrastructure issues in order to have the property developed. He said that the Iowa City Planning department has indicated to the developer that the timing is good for this annexation because the staff will be consulting with the City Council regarding the Capital Projects Budget in January 2010. He explained that the Capital Projects Budget does not currently include anything having to do with this property. At the consultation meeting in January 2010, the Iowa City Planning Department staff will be presenting a brief review of the property to the City Council. He added that if the City Council shows an interest in making the focus property a priority then the Planning Department will work with the developer in trying to prepare the land for future development.
Davidson explained that adding a loop street down into the property from the extension of Oakdale Boulevard is the basic plan for providing access to this property. He said the Iowa City Public Works Department has indicated that it is possible to extend municipal water and sewer to this property. With the provision of those three infrastructure requirements, water/sewer and road access, a property can be developed. He stated that it is possible to extend water and sewer lines to the property but the issue is money. There is nothing programmed to provide water and sewer lines at this time.
Davidson explained that there are a lot of sensitive environmental features in this area. He reminded the Board that the City of Iowa City has a Sensitive Areas Ordinance that will have to be taken into consideration. The developer has indicated that they want to market the property as a green development by using green building techniques, but there are no specifics regarding this statement, because nothing has been approved yet. He reported that the Iowa City Planning Department staff will be working on creating these plans with the developer. Woodlands, stream corridors, flood plains, steep slopes, potential wetlands are examples of sensitive environmental features that are all present on this property and would have to be worked out.
Harney asked how many total acres is the annexation. Davidson replied that the parcels included in the voluntary annexation request total approximately 132 acres. Harney asked where the properties tie into Highway 1. Howard pointed out Highway 1 to the Board on an exhibit. She explained that the intersection point was fixed within the 28E Project Agreement, so the intersection is the location that has been agreed upon by the City of Iowa City and Johnson County. She recalled that there were several different Oakdale Boulevard extension alignments shown, but the alignment labeled 3A in the location report ended up being the best option chosen in the Engineering Report. Engineering staff had determined that there were a lot of environmental features in the area and that there was no way the road construction would not impact something. Davidson added that the fixed intersection point at Highway 1 has also been approved by the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) because it is under IDOT's jurisdiction.
Harney asked what government entity would be responsible for the bridge infrastructure on the Oakdale Boulevard extension since the selected alignment option crosses Rapid Creek two or three times. Davidson confirmed that the road extension would cross Rapid Creek three times in the proposed alignment. He reported that it has not been engineered yet. At the present time, the resolution of the expense issues is something that has yet to be worked on with the developer. He said the developer has to come up with a plan for financing the project and/or get the City Council interested in the City of Iowa City financing a portion of the project cost. Harney noted that the area is flood prone. Stutsman remarked that the project is challenging, but exciting. She added that the Oakdale Boulevard extension will be out of the County's venue once this property is annexed. Davidson confirmed that once the property is annexed into Iowa City, the construction of the arterial street will be the City's issue.
Rettig asked where the building envelope will be located. Howard said that the Moss property goes all the way down to Interstate 80, but the portion of Moss property that the family has been trying to develop is directly west of the NCS Pearson owned parcel. She said the larger parcel will be accessed by the loop street that extends through the Neal N Llewellyn and the Catherine Chase Trust property. She said the annexation is being done mainly for the purpose of allowing a road to be extended to the Moss property to allow for future development. Davidson explained that the Moss parcels directly adjacent to Interstate 80 already exist within the City of Iowa City boundary.
Rettig asked what portions of the property are within the flood plain. Dvorak explained that the area along the creek in the middle is the floodway, which cannot be disturbed. He pointed out the 100 year flood plain and the 500 year flood plain to the Board. Rettig conveyed that the road itself will run through the floodway, and both flood plains. She asked Iowa City Planning Department staff to confirm that the development will take place south of Rapid Creek and north of Interstate 80 and it will not be located in the 100 or 500 year flood plains. Dvorak said that he has never reviewed the designation of the 100 and 500 year flood plains through this area. Davidson added that the developer would have to adhere to the Flood Plain Management Ordinance of the City of Iowa City which dictates how structures have to be positioned in areas that are in flood plains.
Dvorak explained that he reviews all permits for bridges and construction in the flood plain for all of Johnson County. He reported that he almost always requires that the construction be a no raise. In other words, he requires that there shall be no impact to the elevation. He said the engineering firms have to review this requirement and provide the City with the necessary information to show that a structure will not raise the elevation. He explained that this means there is always an impact study required during the permitting process, specifically for bridges.
R. Sullivan informed Dvorak that the Board had discussed the topic of an impact fee during the December 16, 2009, Key Issues Work Session. He said that concern stems from the fact that Oakdale Boulevard comes to a dead end in Coralville. The developer of the lots adjacent to Oakdale Boulevard said that if he would have known of the interest in extending Oakdale Boulevard, then he would have charged $1,000 more per lot and finished the road to Dubuque Street. He stated that the City of Iowa City is now looking to extend Oakdale Boulevard from Highway 1 to the west. At some point, there will be the need to cross the Iowa River with a bridge and it is pretty unlikely that the City of Coralville will annex in a way that makes them responsible for provision of this bridge. He explained that he foresees the need in 20 years to build another bridge across the Iowa River that is not in Coralville and is not in Iowa City. This makes the County rural taxpayer on the hook to pay for a bridge that is really in an urban area, because everything is annexed around it. He concluded that this is difficult to justify as a rural expenditure. R. Sullivan said that he does not blame the cities for developing the way they do, because it makes sense to develop in their best interest. He explained that if the County is not proactive at these early stages, then the County can potentially get stuck in this situation. He conveyed that any future expansion of Oakdale Boulevard should incorporate an impact fee, so the folks that will benefit from a proposed Oakdale Boulevard would pay into escrow with the idea that it will pay for a future bridge. He explained that the Board has introduced this topic to Dvorak and he is in the process of gathering information for the Board. R. Sullivan said the impact fee is possible, but there are a lot of restrictions involved. He asked Davidson if he had any thoughts about this subject.
Chappell informed R. Sullivan that the topic to discuss on the agenda is the annexation. He asked if R. Sullivan is looking for thoughts on this impact fee subject with respect to the annexation. R. Sullivan explained that this annexation is part of the impetus behind putting in the Oakdale Boulevard extension. He said that he feels like an impact fee is important from the start. Davidson said that R. Sullivan is correct that impact fees are complicated and that you have to put a lot of thought behind them if you want to stay out of court. He added that it is not out of the question. He explained that the impact fee is predicated on the notion that a private development is creating an impact which then becomes a burden on the public taxpayer. Unfortunately for the purposes of an impact fee on this project, that is not the current situation because there is no burden on the taxpayer now. A taxpayer burden could be established only if there was project programming for the Oakdale Boulevard extension and the foreseen bridge. He reiterated that an impact fee district can be set up at the point when the government has set up a public project that is going to create an impact on the public taxpayer. The impact fee district boundaries are then established, as well as the fee within the district at that time. He added that R. Sullivan is talking about a project that may be done 20 years into the future, as R. Sullivan said himself. He recounted that attorneys have counseled Davidson that stating that something is going to have an impact five years from now is a secure goal, but 20 years from now is a much less secure horizon. If the governing body ends up in court, the suggestion of an impact 20 years from now is not as defendable. He said that all the details would have to be worked out but, in the hypothetical, it could be possible to do an impact fee. R. Sullivan stated that there may only be a 10 year window for Oakdale Boulevard to be extended to the Iowa River, by taking his current interaction with the City of Coralville into consideration. He said that in terms of collaboration, he feels like this area could be planned in a way that the existing taxpayers do not fund this project, but the new development pays its own way.
Rettig asked if any of the surrounding property owners have commented on the annexation. Davidson said that there were several comments during the formal public comment period on the Oakdale Boulevard Corridor Study. He said there were property owners both in favor and not in favor. Howard added that during the voluntary annexation process, the City of Iowa City places a sign on the property and sends out notices to property owners that range within 300 feet of the property. She reported that the City of Iowa City has only received one letter so far. She said the first public meeting in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission is during the evening of December 17, 2009, so there may be people that come to the meeting to speak. She said that NCS Pearson did send a letter in support of the annexation. The letter said that NCS Pearson has always felt that the best way for the Moss family farm to be developed is by extending Oakdale Boulevard.
Davidson conveyed that this presentation is just a consultation to the Board, with its purpose being to inform Johnson County about the potential voluntary annexation by the City of Iowa City. He said that the next step in the legislative process is to present the annexation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which will happen that evening. Stutsman said that she does appreciate that the Iowa City Planning Department staff took the time to come in and that it is a good process to inform the Board about these significant events.
M. Sullivan said that he would like to start off with a background of the topic. He remarked that most of the Board is aware of what has been transpiring with the joint or consolidated communications center. He explained that today there are currently two primary communication or call centers in Johnson County and one secondary call center. He informed the Board that the two primary call centers are the Iowa City Police Department and Johnson County Sheriff department. The secondary call center is the University of Iowa Department of Public Safety. He stated that the County and City got together in 2005 and conducted a planning study for emergency response radio communication upgrades. At that time, both of the centers needed to complete significant upgrades at a significant cost. He conveyed that one of the recommendations of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of creating a Joint Emergency Communications Center for countywide use. At the study, the parties agreed that this center was feasible and preferred, so another set of studies was initiated. M. Sullivan described this point as the time when the City of Iowa City and the Johnson County Board started working more closely together with the other cities and towns located in the town to create an entity known as the Joint Emergency Communications Center Services Agency Policy Board (JECCSA). He clarified that the Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) became the physical aspect of the operation, the JECCSA is the actual board. He said the County has two representatives on the JECCSA board, Harney and Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek. The City of Iowa City has two representatives on the JECCSA board, Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey and Iowa City City Council Member Mike Wright. He said that the City of North Liberty's representative is North Liberty Mayor Tom Salm and the City of Coralville's representative is Coralville City Council Member Henry Herwig. He added that Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson is the representative from the Emergency Management agency.
M. Sullivan reported that JECC is currently scheduled to open on July 1, 2010, which is when all of the dispatchers from the two existing primary call centers will cut over. He added that these dispatchers will have been offered employment at the JECC prior to July 1, 2010. He explained that he is in the process of preparing and finalizing the JECC budget so that he can present it to the JECCSA board by the end of December 2009. This is to give the JECCSA board time to review the budget and have it ready to submit for approval by the end of January 2010.
M. Sullivan stated that part of this process is to establish healthcare benefits and payroll services for the JECC. He said the accounting services are already being done through the County, based on the way that this was all established at the very beginning. The County’s Supplemental Fund is what actually pays for the construction, equipment, and ongoing operations of JECC. He informed the Board that Davidson was the JECC Interim Director in April of 2008 and employed by JCCOG, at that time. He said that Davidson had inquired about healthcare benefits and payroll services to the County and City of Iowa City. After that, the County responded with a series of questions, but the communication never went any further. He recounted that the JECCSA Policy Board did not have any discussions in order to take action on these subjects. He asserted that he had sent another simple request for proposal (RFP) shortly after he had become the JECC Executive Director, in order to have a chance to discuss this topic with the County and the City of Iowa City.
M. Sullivan said that when the initial study was done, there was a series of recommendations that came out of what was called the Final Report. One of the recommendations is that the JECCSA Policy Board's intention was to mirror the healthcare benefits and wages of the JECC employees with the City of Iowa City's or Johnson County's employees. He said that some of these decisions have already been made by the JECCSA Policy Board, for example the employee wage issue. He added that the City of Iowa City has declined to provide the healthcare benefits and payroll services for the JECC employees. He announced that he is asking the County to consider providing these services. He said he discovered that going out into the private sector and having it underwritten is going to cost a lot more money. He informed the Board that he has more information on the cost differential of the private management versus the County management of healthcare and payroll.
M. Sullivan said that he is attending the meeting to formally request that the County consider providing payroll and health insurance benefits to the JECC employees by July 1, 2010. He acknowledged that there are a lot of hurdles to be overcome because it is a unique situation. If the County chooses to provide these two benefits, then an agreement has to be created with the JECC.
Stutsman asked if M. Sullivan said that the County is managing the JECC’s accounting, such as processing claims. M. Sullivan said yes. He reminded the Board that the levy comes through into the General Supplemental Fund. He said that invoices come to him now and he processes the invoices, then they go to Emergency Management. Since the funding is through Emergency Management, at this point there is only one expense line and one revenue line. He explained that even though the Auditor’s office tracks all the expenses, as would be done individually. He added that Wilson signs off on the claims, then they go to the Auditor’s Office and are processed as they normally are. Stutsman remarked that she would like to clarify that the County does not pay the claims, the County just processes the claims. He confirmed this and added that the claims are paid out of the JECC budget, which is run through Emergency Management.
R. Sullivan asked if the City of Iowa City gave any reasons for declining to provide these services. M. Sullivan replied that the City of Iowa City gave two reasons. One is that the City is self-funded, which means that in order to fund this expense the City would have to fund it through a citywide tax rather than a countywide tax. He said that if the County provided these two benefits to the JECC employees, then it would be funded by a countywide tax. He added that if JECC had to go through a private sector method of providing the payroll function and healthcare benefits, it is still through a countywide tax, the same General Supplemental Fund that JECC currently uses to build and operate the facility.
R. Sullivan asked if the City of Iowa City provided these services, wouldn’t the JECC then be buying the services from the City. M. Sullivan replied that there are two ways of doing this. One is that the JECC could buy these services in advance, which was something that the City was not interested in. Or the JECC could pay it as the claims are processed. He reiterated that the City’s issue was the taxation details. He explained that the City felt that it was more appropriate and applicable to use a countywide tax, rather than a citywide tax. R. Sullivan and Stutsman remarked that they were still confused. Stutsman asserted that the JECC, by using the funds generated by the levy, would just be reimbursing the City for the expense of managing these two benefits. M. Sullivan clarified that in order for the City to fund the expense, the City would have to tax the City to have it in their budget.
Rettig asked M. Sullivan to clarify again why the City would have to fund anything related to JECC. She said that the JECC would be paying for the services through the County levy. She added that she is not saying the City should not have agreed to provide these two benefits, but she does not understand the argument behind this line of reasoning. She concluded that there would be a 28E Agreement and JECC would pay for whatever the City’s expenses were. She explained that the City would not have to tax for anything because the tax is already countywide from the General Supplemental Fund. M. Sullivan said that was correct, but that the City told him that they would have to tax to pay the claims. Rettig clarified that this meant the City would have to tax to have money upfront to pay the claims, because JECC would only be providing a reimbursement. M. Sullivan said that the City would tax the City taxpayers for the initial funding to put in their budget and then there is a countywide tax that impacts the City taxpayers a second time to pay the reimbursement. Rettig stated that any services JECC wanted from the County or the City will be paid for by JECC. She reported that this expense would just be a paperwork exchange, since the county taxpayers are already paying for it. It is not like our separate taxes would be subsidizing this at all.
R. Sullivan declared that maybe the City of Iowa City did not understand the request for these services, because it does not make any sense to him why they would deny the request based on the explanation given. Stutsman remarked that she thought that JECC was always going to be a joint venture between the County and the City. The County is already doing the accounting end of it, and now we are being asked to also do the Human Resources end of it. She stated that she is unsure where the joint part of Joint Emergency Communications Center is at. She asked how many employees there will be at JECC. M. Sullivan said that there are the existing County employees, the 12 full-time additional employees coming from the City, and the administrative staff. He said that he would budget for close to a total of 30 full-time employees. He said that 17 to 19 of those 30 are not currently County employees.
Rettig asked M. Sullivan to explain the cost differences between the governmental body providing Human Resources services and JECC purchasing these services from the private sector. M. Sullivan replied that there were a number of underwriters that he had talked to. The underwriters that he eliminated first were the ones that could not come close to providing the same level of benefits that the JECCSA Policy Board is interested in providing its employees. He explained that there was another company that required an employee relationship that was eliminated as well, because it would not work in the JECC environment or work with a government entity. He concluded that there are two companies that are able to meet the current City and County benefits plans as close as possible. He said the only differences were in the deductibles and out of pocket maximums, but the 90/10 in network 80/20 out of network coverage was the same. The underwriters have only been able to provide M. Sullivan with estimates because there are questionnaires for the employees that would put the employee in a low, midrange or high risk group for the insurance pool, which would change the cost. The estimated total for 30 full-time employees was quoted as $315,180 a year from one company and a range from $335,250 to $474,084 a year. Rettig asked what the cost would be for the County to provide these services. M. Sullivan said that he does not have current numbers from that, but he is sure that it would be less than the private sector because the real cost is known. In the private sector, the quoted estimates given were most likely the lowest possible cost. He explained that the real cost will most likely be more than what was quoted.
Stutsman said that the discussion is centering on healthcare benefits and payroll services, but the provision of human resources functions is much more than that. She said that the County’s Human Resources would then have to take on all of the normal functions of an HR department than just these two requested tasks, such as grievances. She conveyed that it is putting a lot more work on an already overworked department in the County. She concluded that the County would have to add additional staff to cover the JECC human resources functions. She remarked that the timing is not very good. The County has six of their contracts open at the moment, and to take on JECC by July 1, 2010, is almost insurmountable.
Harney stated that he does not view this situation in the same way as Stutsman. He explained that adding the JECC employees would actually only be adding another 17 more employees to process into an existing set of over 500 employees. He reported that the County has to keep the employee pool at a number exceeding 500 employees to maintain the cost benefits for the services that are already provided. He said that it is in the best interest of the City and the County to have the JECC human resources services fall under either’s already existing department. He informed the Board that the JECCSA Policy Board is willing to pay for any of these services, so if it is going to cost above the normal price, then that bill will go to the JECC. He said that if it means that an additional person is going to be hired in Human Resources, then the Board needs to know that upfront. He asserted that he did not believe it would take another Human Resources employee to service an additional 17 employees’ benefits. He added that he is not sure that tasks such as grievances would go through Human Resources. He said that M. Sullivan is not asking for complete Human Resources services. Stutsman asked who the grievances would go through, if it was not Human Resources.
M. Sullivan said that he can negotiate for those services from Human Resources. For example, the personnel manual has been completed but has not been approved by the JECCSA Policy Board because this human resources services issue, which impacts how the personnel manual is written, is something that he wanted to get addressed before approaching the JECCSA Policy Board. He said the JECC’s legal counsel, the HR attorney, is looking at the personnel manual and fleshing out the issues that are considered negotiable. He maintained that once the employees come over from the City, then the JECC employees will want to organize into a separate unit, which is fine. He reiterated that the human resources services is an aspect of the personnel manual that needs to be fleshed out, because those are the items that will be a part of negotiations with the organized employees.
Harney added that another issue with one of the private sector companies that M. Sullivan had looked at was that the company wanted the JECC employees to be part of their employees as well, in order to cover JECC on their benefits package. He said that is not in the best interest of the County taxpayers as a whole. He explained that the County taxpayers are going to have to pay for JECC either by a higher price for private sector services or by a more realistic price within one of the government agencies.
R. Sullivan declared that he has had some frustrations with this whole process from the very beginning, which has not been a secret. He said that he is convinced that most Iowa counties have one system that the sheriff is in charge of, and it is run by the county. He recounted that Johnson County had the opportunity to create that type of system and could have done it very easily. It would have cost at least a few hundred thousand dollars a year less. He asserted that the City of Iowa City had to maintain a certain amount of control, so a policy board was created and layers of bureaucracy were added that are not necessary. He said that a few hundred thousand dollars of costs have been added and the County has not seen any benefit from it. In a matter of fact, the situation is worse than had the County just done it alone. He stated that every person in Johnson County is a county taxpayer. He declared that a 28E entity did not need to be created. He explained that all the people in Johnson County have already paid for this because an entity already exists. It is the County government. But, for whatever reason, the City of Iowa City could not give the responsibility for this function to the County entirely, so the County ends up with this convoluted creation. He said that the City of Iowa City forced the creation of the joint department, when the County could have done it alone. Now, the County is being asked to take on more and more. He concluded that it is time for the City of Iowa City to step up and make this joint project a little more joint. He said that M. Sullivan should find someone else to provide these services if the City of Iowa City does not want to provide them.
Harney commented that he disagrees with R. Sullivan. He stated that this project is not convoluted. The JECC might not be put into place the best that the County can at this point, but the City of Iowa City and Johnson County all agree through East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) to put this entity together and to create the JECC facility to serve everyone in Johnson County, including the University of Iowa. R. Sullivan maintained that the County could have done it. Harney replied that he does not think the County could have done it. He stated that the County would have taken a lot more expense to create the JECC through the County then through the joint entity. R. Sullivan expressed that what Harney is saying is impossible. He explained that Pulkrabek was managing this emergency call center function and could have continued to manage this without any additional employees. Harney disagreed. His example was that there was the upfront cost for the construction of all of the towers in order to gain the necessary coverage. R. Sullivan replied that the upfront expense would be there in any case, as already said by Pulkrabek to the JECCSA Policy Board. Harney explained that if the County had completed the call center function by itself, then the 17 new employees would have to be hired by the County anyway. R. Sullivan clarified that what he has been saying is that there has easily been a couple hundred thousand dollars in extra expense because of the way that this communications center was set up. Harney remarked that he does not understand where R. Sullivan gets his numbers. R. Sullivan said that salaries alone are costlier, for one. Harney said that these employees are going to still have to be hired if it was kept in the County. He reminded R. Sullivan that if he wanted to keep the responsibility for this function in the County, then the Board should just have kept the emergency call center in the County as ours and the emergency call center in the City as theirs. In hindsight you cannot pick up bones. R. Sullivan said no, the City did not need a separate call center. He contended that he agrees that there should only be one emergency communications center, but it should have been run by the County. He said that there was already an existing County elected official that could have taken care of it.
Stutsman agreed with R. Sullivan. She acknowledged that hindsight is always better than trying to make decisions without all the information. She conveyed that she knew all along that the devil was going to be in the details with this project. Now the Board is dealing with the details. She agreed that the County could have run this alone, but it was a control issue. Everyone wanted to have their input in how JECC would be managed. She concluded that when everyone is at the table making decisions, then costs go up accordingly. She said that she also thinks it is time for the City of Iowa City to step up and take on some of the responsibility for servicing JECC. She added that the County is going to have to set up another bargaining unit for JECC employees and the County has not yet dealt with wages. She asked M. Sullivan if wages have been negotiated with the employees in transition from the City of Iowa City to the JECC. M. Sullivan replied that the JECCSA Policy Board has already approved the wages. Stutsman asked if wages has been dealt with in its entirety. M. Sullivan responded that wages have been approved for day one, when the employees transition over, but it is always open to negotiation when the employees organize.
Neuzil inquired, as the County adds these JECC employees into the County Human Resources system, would the provided services have to be the exact same as the County’s existing services. He reported that the County already provides these services for entities like Emergency Management, and these services mirror what the County has. He explained that if Human Resources function is being provided by the County, but details like the pay scale of JECC has already been approved separately, should that not match with the County’s pay scale instead. Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek said that Neuzil’s question is actually many questions. She said that the original 28E Agreement states that the employees of the JECC are not to be considered employees of any entity. She said that the JECCSA Policy Board determines the personnel policy, which implies that the JECC employees would not be bound by the Johnson County employee handbook or any existing collective bargaining agreements. She said if the County has a separate entity that is going to be bargaining on its own, then the County does not have any control over the wages or benefits. If the County is going to agree to provide those services, then it will be very problematic because the County will not know if there is going to be any changes in plan design. She explained that the County currently provides Human Resources services for six bargaining units and the County works very hard to keep all six units under one umbrella for health care coverage. She said that this is done to maintain an economy of scale in order to get the best coverage for the best price. She acknowledged that the County has a very great plan by doing so. But the JECC’s requests may not match what the County already has, for example if the JECC tries to negotiate for 100% coverage, instead of the existing 90/10 coverage that the County currently has. She conveyed that the County does not have the 100% coverage plan available. In order for Human Resources to administer that plan, Human Resources would have to go to Wellmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield and add the additional plan. She said that once additional plans are added, the costs go up. She reported that when an entity veers away from their original plan, it costs $10,000 right away. She asked if the numbers M. Sullivan gave regarding the private sector provision of human resources services only covers healthcare costs. M. Sullivan replied that the prices are quoted for healthcare and dental, but not administrative costs.
Shramek reported that County provided healthcare coverage would cost $392,000 for the JECC’s 30 full-time employees, but does not include dental. Neuzil said that he wants to keep this process as open-minded as possible, but obviously this comes down to the issue of control. He stated that if the JECCSA Policy Board is going to have control of all of these human resources services decisions and then ask Johnson County Human Resources staff to be able to negotiate and facilitate those functions, then it makes things difficult. He questioned would the JECC employees fall under similar circumstances as the staff of Emergency Management, if the proposal comes from Johnson County. For the County to be able to provide these services, JECC would have to comply with the County employee handbook and healthcare plan. Stutsman added that to do this would suggest that the JECCSA Policy Board would have to take a major change to agree with this requirement. The 28E Agreement is not set up that way now and the JECCSA Policy Board would have to agree to adopt the County’s personnel policies as a package. Neuzil reiterated that this is what the Emergency Management Commission has done in the past. He said he wonders if this is even possible. He suggested that M. Sullivan relay this to the JECCSA Policy Board, so that the transition is a whole lot easier. He declared that the most important issue here is to create efficiencies by making this happen. If JECC can find a way to have this service provided by the County and can save money in the process. He acknowledged that Human Resources is going to have a lot to do with the decision and recommendations made by the Board to make the transition as smooth as possible. Harney added that there is nothing to say that this cannot be done.
Rettig asked how much it costs a year to provide healthcare services for a single employee. Shramek said that it is $1,088.90 a month for an employee with or without a family plan. Rettig asked M. Sullivan if he priced the private sector healthcare services for 30 full-time individuals. M. Sullivan said that he priced both. He said that he consulted the City of Iowa City and Johnson County about information on the JECC employees. He said that there are a total of 12 family plans and 12 single plans for the City and County. So, when the healthcare services were priced out by the private sector, he asked the company quote it for 15 family plans and 15 single plans. He said that there is a $200 to $500 difference in monthly costs between a County serviced plan and a private sector serviced plan. He added that the coverage is just about the same. Rettig said that if what M. Sullivan is saying is true, then the County should stop self funding and go purchase insurance that M. Sullivan has been quoted. She asserted that someone’s calculations are wrong. She remarked that she does not know enough about healthcare costs to know what is wrong. She said that if the exact same insurance that the County has can be purchased on the private market for less than the County pays, then the County should go purchase the private insurance.
M. Sullivan reminded Rettig that his quotes are the estimates that the underwriters have given him. He reported that none of the JECC employees have filled out healthcare questionnaires, so the risk pool is still uncertain. He said that the underwriters are giving M. Sullivan the estimates based on the assumption that the employees are healthy and will fall under a medium range for risk and cost accordingly. He said the estimates that he has are low. Stutsman commented that M. Sullivan has not actually done an RFP to go out to the private sector for this information. M. Sullivan said that he has done that already, but that the JECC does not have any employees yet. No one will fill out a healthcare questionnaire until they become an employee. R. Sullivan stated that it must be a hypothetical then. Harney asked what JECC needs to have in order for the private sector providers to give a solid number. M. Sullivan said that the underwriters are giving estimates. When the underwriter is giving a quote, while in competition with the other underwriters at the same time, the underwriter will try to keep their quote as close as he/she can to the other underwriters. He noted that with Iowa Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, the policy costs can be underwritten pretty close to any other competitor.
Shramek replied that she would like to answer Rettig’s previous comment as well. She said that her quote was for 30 family contracts. She said that she did not know that M. Sullivan was getting quotes for 15 family contracts and 15 single healthcare insurance contracts. She said that the County currently has two family contracts for every single contract. She stated that if she calculates 15 family contracts and 15 single contracts under the County’s healthcare plan, the cost would be $266,634. Neuzil clarified that Shramek calculated her costs based on the assumption that JECC would need 30 family contracts, and M. Sullivan received numbers structured on the assumption of 15 family and 15 single contracts. He asked what it costs to cover a single employee without a family for a month. Shramek said that the cost would be $392.40. She reiterated that the 15 family and 15 single contract quote of $266,634 would be for healthcare coverage only and would not include a dental plan.
Rettig reminded the Board that she is the only current Board member that did not vote for the JECC. She reported that she had asked a number of these contentious questions beforehand. She said that she has asked some very serious questions about the levy rates for the JECC during the last few budget meetings. She declared that it is her perspective that the government is better to provide the human resources services than the private sector once the entity is created. She said that, in all intents and purposes, the JECC consists of public employees. They are public employees in a created new entity. She explained that the funding for this is all coming from the taxpayers. She maintained that R. Sullivan’s arguments are sound and that, again, she would not have voted for the structure that JECC has become. But, now that the County has put itself in this position, there is a potential savings of $100,000 for a governmental body to provide the health insurance instead of a private sector entity. She announced that this savings is not insignificant to her. She explained that we are all paying the bill for JECC in the end. She concluded that if the City of Iowa City refuses to do accounting and refuses to provide human resources functions to JECC, then it is time for the City of Iowa City to lose one of their representatives on the JECCSA Policy Board. This is because JECC is no longer a joint project, it is a County project. She added that these discussions with M. Sullivan are about more than just human resources services provision. If the County is going to provide the entire infrastructure for JECC, then the County should have more say in the policy setting framework for the JECC. R. Sullivan mentioned that the City of North Liberty and the City of Coralville also have representatives on the JECCSA Policy Board.
Neuzil stated that he wants to point out that it is a two way street. He asked Rettig if she would want to get rid of one of the County representatives if the City of Iowa City decided to take over responsibility for provision of JECC human resources services. He conveyed that the Board should get back to whether or not the County can provide human resources services to JECC. He said that everyone can have their own opinion regarding past decisions concerning the JECC. He asserted that he thinks it is a good entity. He said that the Board needs to let M. Sullivan know if the County can provide this requested service. He said that from what he has gathered, for the County to provide these services requested, M. Sullivan will likely have to go back to the JECCSA Policy Board and ask if the employees live within the County’s current structure.
Stutsman informed the Board that she will not even consider entertaining these requests unless the JECCSA Policy Board was willing to adopt all of the County’s personnel policies, such as the County’s wage scale and the employee handbook.
R. Sullivan said that what Stutsman is asking for is not going to happen. He replied that half of the people employed, or to be employed, by JECC are in a union with Iowa City and half of these people are in a union with Johnson County. He said that these employees are going to have to come together and decide to bargain something. He recounted that the Board already knows that the City of Iowa City emergency communications center employees make more money than the County employees. He recounted that the Board already knows that the City of Iowa City healthcare plan is slightly better and richer than the County healthcare plan. He said that the majority of the JECC employees are coming from the City of Iowa City’s emergency communications center. He stated that these former City employees are not going to negotiate away benefits that they already have or accept less. The idea that the County suggests, that the JECCSA Policy Board must adopt the County structured plan, will be rejected by the employees.
Neuzil reminded the Board that the JECC will be rehiring individuals to be a part of the JECC. He stated that these transferred employees would have to comply with whatever the JECCSA Policy Board determines as the JECC human resources structure.
R. Sullivan replied that the JECC employees can choose to form a bargaining unit and walk off the job. The idea that these employees are going to accept less money is absolutely not going to happen. He said that if the JECC’s intention is to mirror the human resources policies of an entity, wouldn’t that entity be the City of Iowa City since the JECC is undoubtedly going to take the more advantageous City of Iowa City wages and benefits. If the County chooses to administer the requested services to the JECC, then Shramek would basically have to administer two plans. If the City of Iowa City were to administer the requested services to the JECC, then the City would only have to administer one plan.
Harney said that R. Sullivan is making assumptions. He reported that the City of Iowa City’s union is not going to represent the JECC employees, because they are going to be working for the JECC. He said that the JECC is the entity that is going to be setting up the guidelines, pay scale, and vacation to give everyone the benefit of what the employees have now to the best means that JECC can. If the employees walk off of the job, then the employees are going to be replaced because each potential employee is going to have to apply for the job and accept the job or not. R. Sullivan said good luck with the scenario because it is not going to happen. He conveyed that nobody is going to have the political will to go down that path. He asserted that the people that are going to work for the JECC are not going to lose money and benefits. He stated that the JECC employees are going to get paid the same as what the City of Iowa City emergency communications center employees are making right now, at a minimum. Harney replied that he is not sure about the City of Iowa City. He reported that the agreement was to try to get the best that the JECC can between the City of Iowa City and the County. R. Sullivan concluded that the best is the City of Iowa City. He explained that the County should not be managing the City of Iowa City benefit package and pay package when the City can manage them itself. Harney reiterated that the County is not going to manage the City of Iowa City benefits and pay package. The County will manage the package that the JECC sets up. R. Sullivan declared that he would bet that the package the JECC sets up is not going to be worse than what the City of Iowa City has now.
Stutsman acknowledged that the County needs to have the same package for everyone. Whether the JECCSA Policy Board accepts it or not, the JECCSA Policy Board has to agree to the County package in order to receive the requested services from the County. Neuzil said that it comes down to making this transition from the two primary call centers to the JECC as easy as possible. Obviously, by using the existing County Human Resources Department, it would follow that the JECC would also use the existing administration processes within the County Human Resources Department.
Pulkrabek said that all along through this process, it has been agreed upon that the JECC would cherry pick the best of the City of Iowa City and the best of the County when the communications center functions are combined. He said that the County can go into negotiations and request that the JECCSA Policy Board make accommodations. He added that the problem is that some of the subjects that the JECCSA Policy Board makes decisions on are mandatory items of bargaining and the County may not be able to get the requests. He acknowledged that he agrees with R. Sullivan. Pulkrabek said that a dispatcher who has given fifteen years of service which makes X amount, and a City of Iowa City dispatcher begins which makes Y amount, which happens to be greater than X. He explained that it is not fair for them to sit side by side doing the same job and not have the same level of benefits. He conveyed that this decision was one of the very first hurdles as this process began five years ago.
Neuzil reminded the Board that it was already known that JECC was not an entity that was going to save money in the process. He said that JECC was established due to the desire to provide better communications services for all of Johnson County. So, we have an opportunity to potentially save some dollars. He concluded that the question is if the JECCSA Policy Board can adhere to some of the functions that Human Resources could be able to provide.
Stutsman recalled that Shramek made a good point when she said that the County tries to keep all bargaining units equal. She explained that servicing JECC is going to cost the County more money because the existing bargaining units are going to say that they want what JECC gets. The Board has been pretty consistent about trying to keep benefits equal among the bargaining units. She added that the County would be taking on an undue burden if the County offered to manage the Human Services functions to JECC. She explained that the County is always left holding the bag and picking up the slack. She said that the County cheerfully does this in the spirit of cooperation. She stated that the County needs some respect too. R. Sullivan replied that this request is a huge financial loser for the County and that he does not see any reason why the County would want to enter into this.
Neuzil said that he would like to have Slockett speak about this subject. He explained that part of the discussion about this subject would be about benefits administration which would affect the Auditor’s Office duties. He said that he would like to ask Slockett about the burden upon the Auditor’s Office in regards to handling administrative tasks by adding 17 to 19 more employees. He asked what this would mean for the Auditor’s Office and would Slockett anticipate needing additional staff.
Slockett responded that Neuzil had a good question. He added that he has some relevant information about why the City of Iowa City may be hesitant to do the payroll. He said that there is no more complicated and expensive way to go about this than the way that it has been laid out. He conveyed that, under the current construct, the Auditor’s Office was hoping that if the County did the payroll and accounts payable, that it could be treated as an agency fund and the Auditor’s Office could use the County’s tax identification number and use the existing accounting system. When this was explored, it was found that it was not permissible, because of the way this system is structured. He said that the Auditor’s Office is doing the accounting for the JECC, but it is a temporary situation. He said that his understanding was that the County was not going to continue to do the accounting or payroll for the JECC. If the County were to do it, the Auditor’s Office would have to set up another County accounting and software system. He said that it could be on the County’s Government E-Management System (GEMS), but it would be like having another two counties, with separate account numbers. He said that this is what the City of Iowa City is probably concerned about. He stated that he understands the theoretical logic of having the County responsible for part of the accounting and the City of Iowa City do part of the accounting, but it is totally impractical. He maintained that the City of Iowa City would have to set up a separate city entity to do their part and the County would have a separate county entity to do the County’s part. He clarified that this would be much more costly than if the JECC was just another County department. He remarked that the Auditor’s Office budget proposal requested a half full-time equivalent (FTEs) employee or 20 hours per week, and he said that servicing the JECC would take one full-time additional employee. He said that the Auditor’s Office has not really pursued what it would take to set up a separate accounting system because the Auditor’s Office was not aware that this would be a possibility.
Slockett said that one suggestion the Board could think about is grandfathering in the current situation with the two bargaining units and negotiating all new employees hired under the County system. He said that there are other possibilities that may not have been thought through. One is to have Slockett and someone from the City of Iowa City’s accounting department get together and discuss this. He explained that they could come up with suggestions about how the accounting should be handled. He asserted that the solution would not be to have the City of Iowa City do part of the accounting and to have the County do part of the accounting.
Stutsman asked if Slockett was referring to the accounting, not the Human Resources side of this request as well. Slockett answered that he was only speaking in regards to payroll and accounting services for JECC. He explained that M. Sullivan had asked for assistance with payroll functions. He said that payroll and Human Resources work together during the administration of these services.
Harney asked if Slockett and Human Resources staff could find out what the actual cost would be to provide the services requested of the departments. He said that he would like to know if it would be cheaper and more effective to go with the private sector. He said that the Board needs to have some solid numbers for the sake of comparison. Slockett asked if the Board would like to have numbers on the full accounting and budgeting services for JECC. Shramek added that there is not a clear scope of services requested for JECC. She said that she had asked all these questions of JECC and has never received a response back.
R. Sullivan said that the Board should first find out if there are at least three Board members that want to continue pursuing this topic. He said that he would hate to see Slockett and Shramek spend all that time to figure out a proposal, when there is not enough interest in pursuing it.
Slockett declared that he will agree that the provision of emergency call center services should be a County function. Whether it was under Pulkrabek, which would be terrific because he is full capable of doing it, or as a department head under the Board, is the way it should have been done. He explained that, now that five years have passed, he is wondering if there is a possibility that the City of Iowa City and the County could agree to place the JECC under the jurisdiction of the County. R. Sullivan said that Chappell made it very difficult to get out of the agreement. Stutsman said that it is not impossible though and she wants it to be a part of the discussion.
Rettig asked if the Auditor’s Office had to create separate accounting books for Emergency Management, too. Slockett replied no, Emergency Management was created under an agency fund. Stutsman added that Emergency Management is not a separate levy. Slockett said that the JECC is in a different category because the funding sources are completely independent. Essentially, the need for separate accounting books for JECC is because of the language of the 28E Agreement. He remarked that it does not have to be that way. Shramek added that the JECC is intended to be under a separate tax identification number. Rettig stated that the 28E Agreement did not have to be structured that way, but could have been handled in the same way as Emergency Management or Conservation Board. Slockett and Shramek added that Scott County is an excellent model for this. Stutsman added that this function is under the County in Scott County.
Neuzil said that the question now is whether the Board wants to continue the conversation about the potential of providing these Human Resources and payroll services to the JECC through Johnson County. He said that if there are three members that want to continue the conversation, then have M. Sullivan relay this back to the JECCSA Policy Board in regards to some of the details that would likely have to be worked out. One is to make it an easier transition for Human Resources. Another is some of the issues that Slockett had, such as the need for another half-time position to manage the additional employees.
Neuzil asked the Board if there were three members that wanted to continue to move forward on this request from JECC. R. Sullivan said no. Stutsman asked if there were three Board members that wanted to look at the possibility of restructuring the JECC. Rettig said that it should have been restructured from the beginning. She remarked that she would have never voted for the JECC the way it is. All of this should be renegotiated because details that were not anticipated are now on the table. She reiterated that one of the governmental entities should provide the human resources functions for the JECC. If the JECC is going to continue in its current form, the tax savings potential is high. Even if the County is not able to renegotiate everything, then the County should look at what it would cost to provide these services. Neuzil asked Rettig to clarify if she is saying yes to Neuzil’s original question, about whether she wants staff to work with the Auditor and Human Resources to continue to potentially find a way to work with the JECC. Rettig replied that she is suggesting that the Board do what Stutsman said first, about the possibility of renegotiations. If the County is unable to renegotiate, the County should look at costs then.
Harney asked what Rettig and Stutsman think should be renegotiated. Stutsman answered that she would like to see the structure of the JECC organization renegotiated. Harney replied that this was already done in the 28E Agreement. He asked Chappell if the 28E Agreement could be broken to allow any renegotiations to be done. Chappell explained that the 28E Agreement could be terminated, but it is not an easy process. He said that it is easier if the County has an agreement with the other parties to amend the 28E Agreement. He stated that he is not aware of the provisions that Shramek and Slockett have concerns about that are making it more complicated because they are the experts in their respective areas. He said that the 28E Agreement does indicate that the employees of the JECC will be employees of the JECC and not of either the County or the City of Iowa City. He explained that he is not sure why the JECC is different than the Assessor’s Office, an office where they are clearly not County employees. He said that there must be some reason that the County is able to provide these services for the Assessor’s Office and not to the JECC. He explained that the 28E Agreement can be amended if there are items that the County thinks could be added or changed to make this an easier process. Just like any agreement, you need agreement from the other sides. He said that the County has two votes, but also has a close relationship with Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson, who also gets a vote, which makes it three. He said that the City of Coralville and the City of North Liberty each have a vote as well. He explained that if the County has a good argument to change the 28E Agreement, Chappell acknowledged that the County may get those votes as well. If it makes sense to adjust the 28E Agreement, then he does not know why the City of Iowa City would be concerned about that. He said that the JECCSA Policy Board had always planned on amending the 28E Agreement at some point. This is because, in the 28E Agreement as it exists, the building was going to be built on the City of Iowa City owned property. He recounted that it did not work out because the City of Iowa City could not find a site that worked. So it ends up on County property. He concluded that it is not impossible to change the 28E Agreement, but the JECCSA Policy Board needs to know exactly what it is that needs to be changed. He maintained that terminating the 28E Agreement outright would be far more complicated.
Neuzil asked Harney if he would like the conversation to continue in regards to the County providing the human resources and benefits administration. Harney said that he feels like it would be advantageous to the whole County taxpayer for what it is going to cost overall. He said that it would cost considerably more to hire outside, rather than from within the County or the City of Iowa City. He said that he would like to at least get a cost analysis from the County. Neuzil asked Harney if he would like to have the JECCSA Policy Board do what Stutsman asked. Stutsman clarified that she feels like it is to the point where the Board needs to have a joint meeting between the cities involved in the JECC, in order to lay the situation out and raise the possibility of amending the 28E Agreement. She stated that there are real obstacles. The Board made decisions with the information it had at the time. Now that the Board has additional information now, some of the Board members may be willing to reconsider some of the decisions that were made. She reiterated that it is time to have a meeting with those groups that are involved to discuss the issues at hand.
Neuzil agreed that it would be a healthy thing to do. He added that he is not in opposition to the current structure of the JECC. He said that he thinks it is an entity that needed to take place in order to bring together the City of Iowa City, the County, the City of Coralville and the City of North Liberty. In this case, the JECCSA Policy Board has been a fair entity. He explained that it is an entity that mirrors a lot of the organizations that already exist. If the JECCSA Policy Board was able to work closely with the County to match up with the County’s Human Resources functions, there is an opportunity for the County to provide these services. He said he also thinks that the County could work with the Auditor’s Office in regards to bringing the JECC employees into County GEMS system. He said the cost associated with providing this service would be reimbursed back in, so the additional half-time employee could be funded, if that is something that the Auditor’s Office was planning to charge anyway. He declared that if there is a need for additional staff in Human Resources, then that is something that could be discussed as well. If the numbers are put together, and there is the potential for savings, then providing these services is something that should be explored.
Harney said that he does not object to revisiting the issues that exist. He said he was not aware of the issue with the tax identification number discussed by the Auditor. If there are any other concerns, the Board should sit down with the City of Iowa City, Slockett, and Chappell to find out what the concerns are, sit down and discuss those, and see if there are ways to work through the issues before they get out of hand. Neuzil confirmed that there are at least three members of the Board that would like to have an opportunity to have the JECCSA Policy Board meet with the Board, the Iowa City City Council, as well as other cities involved to explore what is in the 28E Agreement. He said that there are at least three members of the Board that are still interested in pursuing the possibility of having County Human Resources and Auditor’s Office participating and providing services for the JECC. He said that the Board feels like that meeting should first be held prior to making any decisions about the services provision request.
Rettig said that Human Resources and the Auditor’s Office need to provide their thoughts on the JECC obstacles in writing to the Board in order to have a joint meeting to discuss obstacles in the 28E Agreement. This information is necessary for the joint meeting. She said that Human Resources and the Auditor’s Office does not need to complete the total work, but could provide the Board with a list of concerns. Neuzil asked the Board if Rettig’s request is reasonable to ask of the County staff. R. Sullivan said that he is not interested in asking the County staff to complete the task because there are currently six open contracts and a salary survey that the Board is trying to implement right now. He asked if there was time for these persons to complete the task. Stutsman replied that she agrees with R. Sullivan. She said that ownership of this task is, again, all on the County. Neuzil said that he is not hearing that. He reminded the Board that the suggestion was made for the County to attempt to renegotiate the 28E Agreement and the JECCSA Policy Board. He asked if the Board wanted to do it or not. R. Sullivan said that timing is the issue. Neuzil stated that the JECC needs to know who is going to manage their 30 employees, so time is of the essence. R. Sullivan replied that the JECC can go find it someplace else. He declared that he is willing to vote no to the request for assistance right now, but the Board does not have at least three no votes. He stated that he thinks this request for services is a crock, frankly.
Neuzil said that he thought he heard three members interested in negotiation, but want to hold off the negotiations process. Stutsman responded that Human Resources has their hands full. R. Sullivan recalled that Rettig asked for a bunch of information to be written up that Human Resources does not have the time to do right now. Rettig replied that there is no point in renegotiating without the information on questions about the 28E Agreement. R. Sullivan declared that renegotiations would have to happen at some other time. Stutsman asked Shramek when her time would be free enough to complete the task of informing the Board about her concerns with providing the JECC with Human Resources services. Shramek said that there are several grievances on top of the six contract negotiations right now. She said that her problem lies in the fact that she is unaware of what the scope of services are. She said that everyone has been using generic terms, like human resources services, and then they probably are not talking about collective bargaining. She reported that it is extremely time consuming to set up the initial contract alone. She said that she needs to know exactly what Human Resources will be taking on before she can comment and offer questions for the Board to address. She reiterated that she still does not have that information. Stutsman said that, one again, the Board is asked to make profound decisions without the necessary information. She commented that she is concerned about how County Human Resources finds the time to get all of that information. She said that the Board is asking the JECCSA Policy Board to be more specific too.
Neuzil said that the JECC Coordinator is giving a presentation and the Board needs to now determine if there is enough information to proceed. He concluded that he has not heard no from three members of the Board to not continue to move forward. Harney confirmed that he wants to continue. Neuzil stated that he wants to continue. Rettig said that she thinks that the Board does not know the answer to the question. Neuzil concluded that the Board is moving forward with the conversation about providing services to JECC. He asked if Human Resources can write down questions to be relayed to M. Sullivan. Shramek replied that she already had sent that information at the beginning of the JECC process. M. Sullivan said that it must have been prior to his employment at the JECC. Neuzil said that the County will get those questions forwarded to M. Sullivan. M. Sullivan stated that there is a JECCSA Policy Board meeting on December 22, 2009, so the timing is good. Neuzil asked if there is an opportunity for the Auditor’s Office to lay out some additional questions for M. Sullivan to relay to the JECCSA Policy Board. Slockett replied yes. Neuzil added that there is interest in having a joint meeting with the JECCSA Policy Board at some point to take a look at the existing 28E Agreement and see if there are ways to provide additional efficiencies by looking at other counties that provide this service. Stutsman asked Neuzil if he wanted this to be done by December 22, 2009. Neuzil stated no. He said Shramek should just forward the email that she had already sent. Shramek confirmed that she could find and forward the email. Harney said that if Shramek needs something more detailed then she can get together with M. Sullivan. M. Sullivan reported that he can answer Shramek’s questions quickly once he sees them. Neuzil asked the three Board members that are interested in moving forward if this information request is reasonable. He remarked that he did not hear an objection to this process.
Chappell confirmed that there are no reports or inquiries from Lyness.
Johnson reported that the County offices will be closed on December 24, 2009, and December 25, 2009, for the Christmas holiday. He said the next Board meeting is December 22, 2009, because of the holiday. It will be held at 10:00 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m. on December 22, 2009.
Rettig said that she recently attended an east side artist and choir concert. She wanted to comment that Iowa City and Johnson County are rich because of the arts and culture. There is no better time to notice it than now. She reported that she went to the Johnson County Historical Society’s winter celebration. She said the trains were running, the cars and Santa were there, which was a lot of fun. She said that she attended the Wreaths Across America event, which was a moving and interesting ceremony. She said that it was very interesting to hear the veterans sing Where Have All the Flowers Gone. She commented that she took a tour of F.W. Kent Park with Conservation Director Harry Graves. She said that she saw the new building under construction as well as visited all the old buildings, which she found to be very helpful. She recounted her participation at the Chamber of Commerce Coralville Round Table at Monica’s. She said that she appreciates the legislators coming to speak with the Board on December 16, 2009, at the Legislative Priorities Work Session. It was helpful to hear each other and speak about where the Board is going on different budgeting issues. She added that she attended the Juvenile Justice Youth Development Policy Board on December 16, 2009, and learned more about juvenile policing. She said she is interested in whether or not that could be part of the County’s future plans. She announced that Iowa City City High and Iowa City West High play basketball at West High this year on December 17, 2009. She commented that she wanted to give a shout out to her neighbors Virginia and Phyllis Johnson and to say that they have come a long way from when she would play HORSE with them in the road. She wished both teams luck.
R. Sullivan stated that he has no report.
Stutsman said that she also attended the Wreaths Across America event and she agrees with Rettig’s comments about how it was a great experience to place the wreaths on the veterans’ graves. She commented that she appreciates the tremendous work to organize and put the event together. She said she attended a Targeted Case Management (TCM) Board meeting on December 14, 2009. The main discussion was a continued talk about the changes in the State of Iowa which will impact the Mental Health/Disability Services (MH/DS) budget. She said this is primarily the changes with the State of Iowa payment program. She reported that she was glad Mental Health/Disability Services Director Kris Artley shared the concerns of the TCM Board at the 8:00 a.m. December 16, 2009, Legislative Priorities Work Session. She said that it concerns her that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. She declared that people’s lives are dramatically impacted by these decisions that any information that the Board has, they have the responsibility to share with legislators about what happens at the local level. She said that she attended a Decategorization meeting on December 14, 2009. She said that she had a liaison meeting with County Engineer Greg Parker, where he updated the Board on where the County is at on projects. The construction season is coming to a close, but Secondary Roads never lack for things to do to get ready for the upcoming construction season. She announced that she volunteered for Project Holiday on December 15, 2009, which she also appreciates the volunteer work that goes into putting that together. She said that she continues to work with the Livable Communities Transportation Subcommittee that is working on sending out a survey to cab companies in the area about their desire to make the cabs more accessible. She said she attended the retirement party for Assistant Maintenance Superintendent Frank Floerchinger Jr. who has worked at Secondary Roads for many, many years. She remarked that Floerchinger is going to be missed and wished him luck in his retirement.
Harney said that he had the Sixth Judicial District (SJD) of Iowa Department of Corrections Board of Directors Meeting. The Sex Offender Case Planning and Procedure policy was adopted. He explained that this policy sets up the procedures which track sex offenders and manages the high risk monitoring. He said that the SJD Board of Directors also adopted the Anchor Center Outpatient Substance Abuse Program staffing, training policy, orientation, staff training, and licensing. He reported that the Anchor Center is a new facility that monitors persons with substance abuse and mental health issues. He said that this Board also had discussions about the mandated 10% budget cut. For the SJD, this came to a loss of $1,344,000. He said that the budget cuts have an affect in how the SJD monitors the released offenders. This will result in more people held in jail because can not be monitored correctly and followed up on. He said that the State of Iowa is looking at another possible 10% budget cut for FY2011. This cut would put a lot of pressure on the SJD. He said the SJD recently had the Legislative evening meeting, with the area legislators. He said that Sixth Judicial District of Iowa Department of Correctional Services Director Gary Hinzman and Clinical Services Manager Malinda Lamb did an excellent job of giving a full overview of the services, effects that those services had, and the handling of persons released on probation. He explained that they also gave an update on the Home to Stay, a low income housing project, which is opening February 1, 2010. This is not judicial dollars that is taking care of that, but comes from funds raised in the community. He said that the SJD budget is $18 million, with about 25% of the budget being locally raised. He commented that SJD does an excellent job. He added that the SJD Board of Directors had a discussion about the responsibilities and span of control of the SJD in regards to the liability issues if they do not properly manage and maintain the follow-up function. He reiterated that the budget cuts have a long-term effect on what may happen in the SJD. Harney said that he attended the Chamber of Commerce Iowa City Round Table and the Wreaths Across America. He also stated his admiration for the individuals who put the Wreaths Across America event together. He recounted that the keynote speaker was U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel David Kim, who was raised in Korea. He stated that Lieutenant Colonel Kim knows the effects of war and how the homeless were the result of the Korean War. He praised the presentation and suggested that others go to the event if they have the time.
Neuzil stated that he set up a meeting with Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center Coordinator Linda Kopping to go over what is happening at the Senior Center. He said that the Board has not had any contact with the Senior Center for a few months and so Neuzil got them back on the agenda. He said that they discussed the budget, as well as general questions. He attended the reception to honor the retirement of Dr. Peter Wallace, who was on the Iowa City School Board and was in Neuzil’s Rotary Club. He said that Dr. Wallace is an individual that continues to go beyond the call of duty when it comes to volunteerism. He congratulated Dr. Wallace. He said that he slipped out of a heated meeting between County department heads to go ring the bell for the Salvation Army. He apologized for leaving the department heads meeting early, but that the meeting went longer than it typically does. He said that it was rewarding to ring the bell, even in eleven degree weather. He announced that he is having a listening post at Mekong Restaurant in Iowa City on December 18, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. and then at Café Iguanas in Hills on December 23, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. If anyone wants to discuss issues with Neuzil, then they should attend those events.
Neuzil confirmed that there is no discussion from the public. He advised the public to visit www.johnson-county.com for more information on the Johnson County government.
Adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary