MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 27, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Key Issues Work Session........................................................................................................ 1
Recap and Progress Report of Items Discussed at the December Key Issues Meeting... 1
Employee Residency Policy......................................................................................... 1
Plan for Wetlands Mitigation in Future Road Projects.................................................... 8
Policies for Use of Health and Human Services Third Floor......................................... 14
Leases for Cell Towers on County Property............................................................... 18
Project Updates........................................................................................................ 20
Johnson County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan........................................................ 24
Revised Performance Evaluation for Johnson County Non-Bargaining Employees......... 25
Update on Sutliff Bridge Project................................................................................ 27
Update on Landfill Policies........................................................................................ 28
Use of Lobbyist for County Priorities......................................................................... 28
Planning for ISAC Day at the Capitol......................................................................... 29
2010 Census Efforts.................................................................................................. 30
Participation in Urban Caucus.................................................................................... 31
Internal Processes, Expectations, and Other Operational Issues of the Board of Supervisors Office 32
Date of Next Key Issues Meeting.............................................................................. 33
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 9:01 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said a lot of procedural issues were dealt with last month, and he thinks most of the items have already been discussed. One of the items was the residency requirement, which is the first agenda item for the current meeting. Stutsman reminded the Board that there are a lot of items on the agenda, and the Board must be out of the room by noon. She said they will keep things moving along as best they can while thoroughly discussing every item.
Stutsman said County Attorney Janet Lyness is not present because she is attending the County Attorney’s Association Legislative Day, but she sent an email which recaps issues discussed previously. She said Johnson included a map of a 25-mile radius around the Administration Building, which the Board has previously discussed using as a criterion for residency in the Board packet. Stutsman stated that Lyness’ email makes it clear that a residency requirement can only be put in place for employees who need to quickly respond to their jobs, such as those who work within Ambulance or Secondary Roads or are critical municipal employees.
Sullivan stated that it seems clear that individuals who drive a plow need to be within a certain distance, as they are called in during emergencies. However, he is not sure about the residency requirement in the case of engineers. He asked if the job description for any engineers includes getting behind a plow in the case of an emergency. If not, he thinks it is a moot point and asked why it would be required. Stutsman said she does not want to start nit picking and saying who is required to move and who is not. Although the idea of grandfathering people in has been discussed, she wonders what would happen if an employee who currently cuts brush is promoted to drive a plow. She said she just thinks it is cleaner and easier for the requirement to apply to an entire department rather than exempting specific employees within a department.
Sullivan said he is curious to know Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek’s opinion. He likes that the 25-mile radius includes a large portion of Cedar Rapids. He said it is nice to have a larger, rather than smaller, area to recruit when looking to fill a high level, high skill position. Sullivan said he certainly thinks it is clear that people who have to respond need to be able to respond within a certain number of minutes.
Rettig said a line on one of the handouts says the residency requirement should be related to a job function. She said Sullivan’s point it well-taken then. The job function of an engineer or a clerk is different from that of emergency response. Neuzil said Rettig brings up a good point. According to Lyness’ interpretation, he is not sure if the Board is able to require residency for an engineer, just as they would not be able to require it of another department. He said the residency requirement would have to be clearly stated in job descriptions. Neuzil said there are two decisions the Board must make. One is determining who belongs under the residency requirement. The other decision is whether it should require employees in the specified positions to live within 25 miles of a certain point or within Johnson County.
Harney said he thinks the Board needs to define which positions are included under emergency services, and a decision should be made based on that. He would prefer that the residency requirement pertains to living in the County, if they are going to do that. Sullivan said Lyness refers to the Iowa Code, which definitely includes Ambulance and Secondary Roads snow plow drivers.
Stutsman asked if Ambulance Director Steve Spenler would be allowed to live outside the County despite the fact that he occasionally drives an ambulance. He just said last week that he had to go out on some calls. Stutsman asked how the requirement could apply to some department heads and not others. Sullivan said he thinks it depends on the job description of the department head. He said an argument could possibly be made that Ambulance Administrative Assistant Barbara Christenson could live outside the designated residency area because she doesn’t necessarily have to respond to emergencies. Stutsman asked for Shramek’s thoughts on the issue. Shramek said she thinks the residency requirement has to relate to job descriptions, job functions, and minimum requirements. She said Spenler’s situation is clearly different than County Engineer Greg Parker’s situation. Shramek said neither Parker nor other engineers are ever behind a snow plow.
Rettig said there could be a list of people whose job descriptions specifically state that they must live in the County. There could be another list of people who have been deemed emergency by the Board and must live within the defined radius due to response time. She said the requirement could involve living in the county or living within a mile radius. Rettig said the Board looked into creating something similar to what was in place in the Sheriff’s Office, but she doesn’t think they got there because their points are different. She said the Board went out 25 miles, and she thinks the residency requirement of the Sheriff’s Office was only at 20 miles. Rettig said they could have literally have one list of positions requiring residence in the County and another list requiring residence within a specific radius because the positions have been deemed emergency essential. Shramek said they could do that, but she can’t imagine why they would. Sullivan stated that he thinks they would have one list or the other. Shramek agreed. Rettig asked if the Ambulance Director is currently required to live in the County. Shramek said no, Ambulance does not have a residency requirement. Rettig asked if there are any residency requirements other than those pertaining to the Sheriff’s Office and Secondary Roads. Shramek responded that there are some requirements for deputy positions within the Auditor’s Office, and there is a response time requirement of 30 minutes within the Ambulance Department.
Stutsman said the Auditor’s Office has residency requirements. Neuzil said to remember that it only applies to administrative deputy positions, which are at the will of the elected official. Stutsman asked Shramek what happens if someone gets promoted to a critical needs position that has a residency requirement. She asked if that individual would have to move or be allowed to live outside the 25 mile radius. Shramek responded that the Secondary Roads residency requirement was implemented in 1997. At that time, people were grandfathered in. If individuals were promoted, they did not have to move into the County if they were employed prior to the implementation of the policy.
Stutsman said she hopes all the snowplow drivers don’t decide to move outside the County. Shramek said there is a residency requirement right now. Stutsman said she knows, but there is turnover in positions, and Johnson County is an expensive place to live. She can see the appeal of wanting to move outside the County, but she does not want a workforce that cannot be depended on to get to their jobs because they do not live within a reasonable radius of their workplace, whether that is due to grandfathering or some other reason.
Sullivan said he knows there is a time requirement within Ambulance. During a previous discussion with Lyness, she said a time requirement is a bad option because some individuals may argue about the amount of time it takes them to travel a specified distance. He said Lyness told them it would make more sense to have a mile requirement because it would be cut and dry. Spenler stated that he believes the time requirement exists of requirements regarding pay. He thinks Ambulance employees would have to be paid an hourly wage rather than an on-call wage if they were not allowed a 30 minute response time. Sullivan stated that it would be possible to have a policy that would include both an area requirement and a time requirement for response time. Spenler said the 30 minute response time has traditionally been for individuals who are on-call. The only individuals who currently take call are management staff and Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Basic employees who are hired for mobile care operation.
Harney asked at what point Ambulance employees start collecting overtime when they are called in to work. Spenler asked if Harney is referring to times when they are on-call. Harney said yes or when they are called into work. Spenler answered that payment begins when the individual arrives at the Service if they are called in to work. If they are called in when on-call, they are contractually paid two hours of time-and-a-half as soon as they get called. Harney stated that those employees getting paid overtime are being paid while they drive 25 miles to arrive to work.
Rettig said the 25-mile map wouldn’t actually allow an individual to get to work in 30 minutes. Spenler said it depends. Sullivan said it depends on how quickly they leave. Spenler said there are currently 5 employees who live outside the 25-mile radius and another 5 employees who live pretty close to it. Stutsman said those individuals would be grandfathered in though.
Spenler said the County is fortunate to have a stable workforce. Across the country, there is a shortage of good, qualified paramedics and EMTs. He said some services in the State of Iowa are never fully staffed. Ambulance is currently an attractive place to work, and he hopes it continues to be. Spenler said the current hiring process draws employees from all over the state and hardly ever are employees hired full-time. Many of them work part-time for Ambulance and full-time for a fire department. Spenler would hate to imposing a restriction because it could result in not being able to hire qualified employees in the future. He said the individuals are being hired part-time and employees hired in the past probably would not have applied if they had been required to live within Johnson County. He doesn’t want to restrict Ambulance in the future from hiring those best qualified.
Spenler added that there have been no major problems so far with Ambulance employees showing up for work. He said there were a few issues during the flood, but it is really no different than having an employee call in sick. When someone calls in sick, other employees have to be called to come into work. Spenler said the majority of Ambulance staff live close by. They had to turn away staff during the tornado because there were too many who wanted to come in to help out. He said it’s never really been an issue. Although it is already covered by having the on-call requirement, there should probably be some type of policy in the handbook for management staff. He does not think it is a good idea to implement such a policy for paramedic staff, however.
Stutsman said that she looks at the issue from a fiscal point of view. She said all of these employees are paid almost 100% from Johnson County property taxes, and she thinks these employees should have some sort of fiscal buy-in. She said that she has a problem with people who live in a different county and pay lower taxes while benefiting entirely from Johnson County taxpayers. Spenler responded that he respects that aspect, but he does not think it is good for the service Ambulance provides to hire a lesser candidate for a position based on where they live.
Stutsman said Spenler’s situation is a little different, and she would like to go back to the issue of the residency requirement. She said if the residency requirement had been in place when Parker applied for his current position, he would not have had to move from Linn County to Johnson County. Parker said he would have had to move in order to be within a 25-mile radius, based on where he lived at the time.
Neuzil said the Board needs to get a few issues resolved so they can provide direction. He listed four issues that need to be addressed. First, the Board needs to determine who is going to be a part of the residency requirement. He said it looks like Lyness has showed them some particular individuals. Second, the Board needs to determine whether they are going to require a Johnson County residency or a set distance from a certain point. Third, the Board must decide if the requirement will start when it is passed or if people will be grandfathered in. Fourth, the Board needs to define residency, and that has not yet been discussed. He asked if residency pertains to where a person votes, lives, or receives their Internal Revenue Service (IRS) form. Harney said that he has supported having an in-County requirement. On the other hand, he thinks there is a lot of merit to having a standard distance requirement throughout the County. He said he doesn’t know why the requirement should be different for an Ambulance employee than it is for a Deputy Sheriff.
Stutsman asked if members of the Board are in favor of establishing a residency requirement for positions for which it is legally permitted. Neuzil, Sullivan, and Rettig indicated that they are in favor of doing so. Stutsman asked what criteria should be put in place regarding the radius. Sullivan said he thinks Neuzil’s first question was which positions would be affected by the requirement. Stutsman said she thought they already established that it has to be related to the job description. Sullivan agreed and said he thinks it will be up to Human Resources to communicate to everyone regarding which positions have job descriptions in which the requirement is included. He imagines it would probably only include Ambulance employees, snow plow drivers, and Sheriff’s Deputies, but the Board needs to know that information. Harney asked if the Public Health Department would have any requirements. Public Health Director Douglas Beardsley stated that there are some grant requirements for responding if he gets a page from the State. He does not think that relates back to their Emergency Operations Center (EOC) operations in Johnson County, but they have 24-7 coverage. Beardsley said he would work hard to define the Public Health Department out of the residency requirements.
Stutsman asked Shramek to provide the Board with information regarding which employees would be impacted. Stutsman said the Board is interested in grandfathering current employees in so the requirement would only affect new hires. Shramek asked how employees in positions that currently have residency requirements will be impacted if the Board establishes a new policy. She asked if they would be able to move out of the county. Neuzil said he thinks they have a right to do so if they can move out of the county in the next month before the policy has been completed. He can’t imagine anyone trying to do that, however. Sullivan said he thinks Shramek is referring to individuals who have continuous employment, currently live in the county, and decide to move out of the county in ten years. Shramek asked if those individuals would be able to build homes in Iowa County. Neuzil said his opinion is that the residency requirement should take effect for everyone the day the policy is passed. He said they would have to move out of the area before the policy is adopted. Shramek asked if it would be okay if they remained within 25 miles. Neuzil indicated that it depends on what requirement the Board decides to implement.
Harney said the 25-mile map needs to be compared to the map used by the County Sheriff. Sullivan stated that he prefers the 25-mile map to what the Sheriff uses. Stutsman asked what the County Sheriff’s policy is. Rettig responded that it is 20 miles from the Sheriff’s Office. She indicated that there are individuals living in some areas of the County who are not eligible to be Sheriff’s Deputies, as a result. Neuzil said he thinks the Board should make sure that at least all of Johnson County is covered. They could say that residency is required within the specified radius or within all of the County and be done with this.
Sullivan said he thinks this relates back to Spenler’s point. He said this is a regional economy, and there are 200,000 skilled people in Cedar Rapids who can be in Iowa City in 25 minutes, and the County needs to be able to tap into that pool of workers. Harney said he understands what Sullivan is saying, but that is contrary to what he says about traveling, carpooling, and saving fuel. Sullivan said no, he thinks they should carpool.
Neuzil said there is already a policy used by the Sheriff’s Office that seems to be working. As long as the Board adopted that policy, they could just add ‘or within Johnson County’. Then, he thinks a pretty good margin has been established. Sullivan said adopting the County Sheriff’s policy will limit what Spenler can do. Neuzil asked if Spenler has employees outside of the giant circle. Sullivan said no, but the circle used by the County Sheriff is smaller. Neuzil said he thinks the County Sheriff uses a giant circle. Spenler said he doesn’t want to speak for County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, but he thinks the policy is in place because there are employees who work within the Sheriff’s Office who take vehicles home to respond to emergencies. Spenler said he does not have employees who do that, with the exception of management staff. Neuzil again asked if any Ambulance employees live outside the 20-mile circle used by the County Sheriff. Spenler said yes, there are two employees who live in Muscatine. Neuzil said he thinks Muscatine is too far away for that. Sullivan said he doesn’t know why they wouldn’t use the 25-mile map, which includes a large portion of Cedar Rapids.
Spenler asked why the Board is not implementing the policy for all Johnson County employees if they are doing it for the reason stated by Stutsman. Rettig responded that it is not permitted by law. Spenler asked if they want to apply the residency requirement to Ambulance because they can. Stutsman responded that it would only be for those employees whose job descriptions state that they have to respond. Spenler asked if she means employees who have to be on-call. Stutsman said yes. Neuzil pointed out that employees who currently live outside of the area would be grandfathered in. Spenler said there is no on-call requirement for paramedic staff.
Rettig said, from her perspective, a list of job positions would be defined that are considered to be emergency essential or time sensitive or whatever words they decide to use. That list would be required to live within the set radius, whatever it is. Rettig said if someone is outside of that list, they would not be subject to the residency requirement. From her perspective, the purpose of the requirement is not so that the employees pay Johnson County taxes but so that they can respond in 30 minutes. She said she thinks 30 minutes doesn’t work, however, because 30 minutes in a snow storm is very different from 30 minutes on a beautiful day. Sullivan added that Lyness pretty much told the Board even if a response time requirement is implemented, a mile requirement would also be needed because that is the only thing she can defend in court. Spenler said he doesn’t have a problem with that, but it has traditionally been 30 minutes.
Stutsman said it seems that there are two proposals on the table regarding the radius. One is the 20-mile radius used by the County Sheriff with the addition of all of Johnson County, and the other is the 25-mile radius around the Administration Building. She asked who is supportive of the former option. Neuzil, Rettig, and Stutsman indicated they prefer that option. Sullivan said he prefers the 25-mile radius.
Sullivan said he thinks another problem with the radius used by the County Sheriff is that the center point of the radius is a little bit different than that of the proposed 25-mile radius. He thinks the Board should talk about whether they want to use that center point, which is currently the Sheriff’s Office. Neuzil responded that it seems easier to use the Sheriff’s Office to keep policies consistent. Stutsman agreed. Neuzil said current employees would be grandfathered in so they would not be affected.
Rettig said they are only grandfathered where they currently live. She thinks that is what Shramek was asking about a little while ago. Rettig said those employees are okay outside the radius until they decide to move. She asked if employees who currently live outside the radius and move to another location outside the radius are grandfathered forever. Neuzil said no. Rettig clarified that employees are only grandfathered from where they are currently living. Neuzil said if those employees move, they have to move into the circle. That is how he interprets it.
Sullivan said he still doesn’t see why the Board would make it more difficult for Spenler to recruit people. Stutsman responded that Spenler just said that his employees are not required to be on-call. Spenler stated that County paramedics are not required to be on-call. Stutsman said it’s not an issue. Rettig said the Board would need a list of personnel to whom the restriction would apply. Stutsman agreed and asked if they are okay with grandfathering. Neuzil said yes, it sounds like it’s just the Sheriff’s Office, Ambulance, and Secondary Roads. Those are the only ones the Board is going to talk about.
Stutsman asked if there are any other things the Board needs to consider regarding the issue. Johnson said the two other points Neuzil had are when the policy would begin and how residency would be defined. Stutsman said she thinks the Board should adopt the definition of residency that Lyness provided, which was established by a court case. Neuzil agreed and said he would not want to go against an attorney’s interpretation of the law. Johnson suggested having a list of criteria to further define residency. Stutsman asked Johnson to work with Lyness to create a definition. Rettig said in her opinion, residency has to do with where a person lays their head for the majority of their defined work week. That is where they live. She said an individual cannot just rent an apartment within the County and pretend they stay there while living somewhere else. She added that the point of the policy is emergency response, and these individuals need to be available within a short amount of time. She said that is exactly what is stated in the aforementioned court case.
Harney left at 9:32 a.m.
Neuzil agreed that Johnson and Lyness should work together to come up with some acceptable verbiage defining residency. Sullivan said it may make sense, in terms of an official policy, for the Board to adopt them both at the same time. Stutsman agreed. Sullivan said the Board won’t worry about a start date until that part is done. Neuzil said the start date is dependent on how long the process takes. Sullivan said Shramek may be able to provide the Board with a list of affected positions by that time. Stutsman recommended putting the issue on next month’s Key Issues Meeting agenda. Neuzil agreed.
Stutsman said the Board began discussion regarding whether they should develop some kind of project for wetlands mitigation solely within Johnson County when they recently discussed the Oakland Road Project. Neuzil said it seems like Conservation Director Harry Graves should be present since it now looks like a committee may be forming. He said Graves recently told the Board that the Conservation Board recently purchased property. Neuzil said it seems like it may be an opportunity for the County to do their own mitigation project.
Stutsman said she knows there are new regulations from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regarding these issues. She asked County Engineer Greg Parker to educate the Board about issues related to limiting the project to Johnson County and developing their own wetlands. She thinks the Board members are all supportive of doing so at first blush, but there are always extenuating circumstances that need to be taken into consideration, as with anything else.
Parker explained that for any new construction project, the Corps requires existing wetlands that are impacted to be replaced in another location. Depending on the type of wetlands impacted, it can involve a 1:1 trade or a 3:1 trade. Parker said a 3:1 trade was required for the Oakdale Project, and nine acres needed to be replaced because three acres were impacted. Assistant County Engineer Al Miller confirmed that about three acres were impacted during the Oakdale Road Project. Parker said another wetland has to either be found or built in another location and approved by the Corps, since they approved the permit for it.
Parker said a wetland credit has been created during the last two years as an option for wetland replacement. Although it is not required, it is highly recommended for consideration as a serious option for replacement. He said the recommendation for the Oakdale Project was to purchase existing credits. The existing credits are locations somewhere within the state of Iowa that have been approved by the Corps and constructed. Parker said there is a company that establishes wetlands and has them approved by the Corps. The company then sells the wetlands to entities that are required to replace wetlands that have been disturbed for projects.
Parker said, in the case of the Oakdale Project, the wetland location recommended by the Corps of Engineers had nine acres available for sale. Parker asked A. Miller if the Corps required that Secondary Roads use the location or if they had a list of options for replacement. A. Miller said the Corps required an argument in the County’s mitigation plan as to why they wouldn’t buy these credits. Stutsman asked if he is referring to the place in Iowa County. A. Miller said it is located in Tama County. He said entities are required to purchase credits from a qualified bank within their own region, and this wetland happened to be in the County’s region. If the credit option had not been used, an alternative option would have needed to be developed and approved by the Corps and a reason provided as far as why the credits were not purchased. He said the Corps likes wetland credits because they are already built, certified, and shown to be successful so there is less risk.
Neuzil said he would like to find out how to get Johnson County to be one of these wetland credit locations. Rettig said she may be able to help out a little bit. She said the City of Coralville invited her out to discuss wetlands because they are having some problems with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) allowing wetland mitigation on land purchased by Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP). Stutsman asked how DNR is related to this issue. A. Miller said they are part of the joint permit process. Rettig said the City of Coralville wanted to ask her for her thoughts, as part of her role on the Natural Resources Commission. She said the City of Coralville told her they have a lot of interest in establishing wetland credit locally. Rettig indicated that she has done some research on the issue online.
Rettig said due to concerns regarding the water quality of the Iowa Great Lakes, local ordinances have been established within Dickinson County stating that wetland mitigation projects have to be in the watershed that was impacted or in an adjoining watershed. She said the City of Coralville is interested in pursuing similar ordinances; however, there needs to be an ability to mitigate locally. Rettig said Coralville’s idea was to get various local entities that would use mitigation credits together to figure out how to establish wetland mitigation credits here. It would be problematic to create such ordinances without having the ability to mitigate locally.
Rettig said Coralville also has the Hydrology for their whole community and said they are particularly interested in looking at the Hydrology that affects their water quality. It was suggested that some experts be brought into Johnson County to learn about the processes, steps, and monitoring. Stutsman asked A. Miller if he said this district requires whatever mitigation the Board does to impact this watershed. A. Miller said yes. Stutsman said they are already double checking to make sure. Rettig said that is not true. A. Miller said their region is defined by the drainage area, primarily into the Iowa River. Rettig said that is half the State and not Johnson County’s watershed. A. Miller said that is the way the Corps defines it, and he gave the Board the map that shows their region. Sullivan said during the flood, the majority of the rain did not fall in Johnson County so he can see what the Corps is saying. However, he thinks Rettig’s comments make a lot of sense. If many local governments can come together and do this, he doesn’t know why they wouldn’t. There would be a double benefit of having local impact.
Stutsman said she can envision Coralville wanting the County to build it and take care of it while they will take advantage of it. Neuzil said that could be the case, but Coralville would have to pay for it just like Johnson County is paying to a company. Stutsman asked if Neuzil is sure. Rettig said yes, they will still have to buy credits.
A. Miller said a bank could be done in Johnson County right now. Stutsman said she would almost be more supportive of a private group doing this. That group would take care of the monitoring and billing, and the County would just buy from someone in Johnson County. She asked if Earth View Environmental LLC does that and if they did so for the Marriott Coralville Hotel & Conference Center’s wetland project. A. Miller said Secondary Roads has worked with the group, and they do wetland mitigation plans and delineations. He isn’t aware if they own banks, although they monitor them. Rettig said there are no banks near Johnson County. A. Miller said this is the only one in the region.
Sullivan said he has a question about ownership. He asked if the County would actually take deed to nine acres in Tama County if they purchase them from the private group that has a wetland there. A. Miller said no. Stutsman said it is just a credit. Sullivan asked if the County would just be paying the group to manage those nine acres. A. Miller said yes. He believes the group bought approximately 80 acres in this case. They then went through the banking process with the Corps to certify a certain number of wetland credits based on the type of wetland they were able to create on the site. Certification was received for over ten acres of wooded wetlands and approximately 30 acres of emergent wetland, for which they can sell credits. Some are still for sale. A. Miller said the company put the money up front to purchase the property. The Corps requires a Conservation Easement over the property so those wetlands are there forever. The property can’t be sold to someone else. Stutsman said that is great. A. Miller said that is the process. This particular group has an agreement with the Tama County Conservation Board as an option to purchase the property when they are done and manage it.
Stutsman asked how many years it has to be monitored. A. Miller responded five years. Parker said the standard build is five years. The Corps prefers to go this route because it is easier for them. It is faster to get the permits through them because it has already been established and they don’t have to review it or make any modifications to the design for the wetlands. Parker said although there are benefits for the Corps to want to do that; the County is not required to follow the credits. They can purchase or find land within the County and build the wetlands, as they have done for several projects over the last few years.
Sullivan said people could just buy credits here if the County established a wetlands bank in cooperation with the road building entities in the County. A. Miller said they could establish a bank. Someone would have to purchase property and go through the process with the Corps and other regulatory agencies to certify credits to be sold. He said the credits could then be sold to different entities, such as cities or counties in the region, for whatever price is negotiated.
Sullivan asked if the City of Lone Tree could buy some of those credits if they did a project that disturbed a creek. Parker said yes, as long as it meets the Corps of Engineer’s requirements, has been certified, and is an option available to the entity. Parker said it is preferred by the Corps right now. A. Miller said the region is determined in the process of establishing the bank and determines to whom credits can be sold, or in what areas.
Rettig said she thinks people lose sight of why the law is there in the fist place. It is there because people should not build in wetlands, and if an entity is going to, they will pay the price and replace what has been disturbed. Rettig said replacing it 60 or 70 miles away defeats the purpose of the law. In her opinion, if the County continues to go down the route of continuing to build in wetlands, which she will be disinclined to do very often, they need to create their own system to replace it in their watershed.
Rettig said the County’s watershed is not the entire Mississippi River Valley or the entire Iowa River Valley. If they take a wetland here and replace it 70 miles away, they destroy the runoff ability of the area and the way the water is filtered, cleaned, and slowed down from flooding. Rettig said taking something off of Rapid Creek and moving it to Tama doesn’t help Johnson County in any way, shape, or form. It might help the County in the slightest way in terms of water quality or slowing water down if it happened to rain in Tama, but it does nothing for what is happening in Johnson County. She reiterated that they have lost sight of why the law is there, which is to discourage building anything in flood plains. Rettig said wetland banks are normally established by transportation. Sullivan asked who did it in Dickinson County. Rettig said they just created ordinances. Stutsman asked who built it and does the monitoring. Rettig said she doesn’t know, and she doesn’t know if they had a bank before the ordinances were established. She thinks they did it in reverse. They created the road block and then said to figure out a solution. She thinks that is a little more problematic.
Rettig said one of the number one goals of the Conservation Bond Initiative was water quality and watershed, and this seems to dovetail into that. Stutsman asked if Conservation would be willing to buy the land. Rettig said they are already buying land on watersheds. She said Conservation is going to put in a trail along Clear Creek, and Graves doesn’t think there is room to mitigate anything other than what will already be disturbed because the land purchased is long and narrow. That doesn’t mean that is Conservation’s last project, however. She thinks a lot more has to be learned about this.
Assistant County Engineer Rob Winstead said a fair amount of wetlands were developed by the County at Kent Park years ago. It was basically created as a bank. As the County did projects, their balance at that bank was basically being reduced. He said at that time, they actually had to struggle with the Corps to recognize using that bank. Winstead said by the time the County used up all those wetlands, they got to the point where they were trying to develop them right on their project sites, which the Corps preferred. He said the Corps has now come back around to preferring banks. Winstead said he thinks all of the Secondary Roads staff members present at the meeting would be more than happy to see wetlands developed again in Johnson County. They would love to be able to use them.
Sullivan asked if they found it easy to use the bank that was located at Kent Park. A. Miller said at that time, the Corps didn’t like banks for the same reasons Rettig previously stated. The first thing entities are required to do is to minimize their impact. Sullivan asked if the Corps thought it made it too easy to tear wetlands up. A. Miller said yes, the Corps didn’t want people making it an economic decision. They didn’t want people destroying wetlands with the thought that they can just go buy them somewhere else.
A. Miller said the other issue, especially for Johnson County and similar entities, is that they impact around 1/3 of an acre when they have a bridge project. In his opinion, trying to build 1/3 acre somewhere else is a bad deal. Although building something that is 30 acres somewhere else might not drain into the same creek, it is much more beneficial to the environment than trying to create 1/3 of an acre of wetland. He said a lot of times the wetlands the County gets into are very low quality, and they build with the mitigation rate. They like something they build to be higher quality, and they can’t do that with a site that small. He said he prefers banks, and he thinks more benefit is obtained from them. They are easier to deal with and allow better planning.
Rettig said she thinks the reason the DNR and Corps are going to banks is because of their own budget cuts. There is no ability to monitor compliance. If they have certified that someone knows how to manage their bank, they know the monitoring is concentrated in one area. Rettig said she thinks they will change their preference again when they start thinking about watershed more carefully. For now, however, she thinks the County and other entities that are growing locally have incentive to figure out a way to do it locally, and they should learn more. Stutsman said it sounds like there is interest in going ahead with proposing something in Johnson County. She said the issue is how to do it, and she wonders if the Board should set up a subcommittee to start doing more work on the issue. The subcommittee could include representatives from Conservation, Secondary Roads, and the Board of Supervisors.
Sullivan said Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak has done related work and asked him for his opinion. Dvorak said he has had difficulty getting a definite response from the Corps. He said approximately ten wetlands have been created in Johnson County in the last four to five years, and that is as far as he’s gotten. He said he has talked to some of the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) staff to see if they can move into it, and the last time he talked to them they weren’t getting much better answers on creating wetlands the Corps will support. Dvorak said he talked to Winstead quite a bit about the monitoring to get into this. He said he would be glad to serve on the committee.
Stutsman said this is a great idea at first blush, but she is not interested in creating another level of bureaucracy in County government. She wants to know the best way to do this and get the desired results. Sullivan said the Board would want Graves, Dvorak, and Parker or his appointee to be members of the committee. He indicated that A. Miller may be the most appropriate person from Secondary Roads. Stutsman asked if Rettig would be willing to be a member of the committee. Rettig said yes. Neuzil said he thinks it would be great for Rettig to be a member of the committee.
Parker said he thinks there is a cost factor that needs to be considered at some point, in regards to wetland credits versus building their own. Stutsman said there is a time factor as well. Part of the discussion regarding the Oakdale Project was pushing the project back another year. She knows a lot of things need to be taken into consideration and hopes the committee will provide pros and cons, a description of things that would work, and the related costs. She asked if a time should be set for consideration. Parker said the sooner the better because Secondary Roads has upcoming bridge projects, and they will have to consider how to handle the wetlands. Stutsman asked if the committee could get back to the Board in a month. Parker said or sooner. He said it would be good for them to move along because there are some bridges they are working on. He said a suggestion would be to buy credits for the structures involving only a small amount of wetlands and to consider another option for those involving larger amounts.
Sullivan said he is not interested in delaying any project, but he is very interested in moving forward with this idea. He thinks they can do both. Stutsman said the Board would like to hear back from the committee as soon as possible. Winstead said Secondary Roads doesn’t automatically say they are buying credits on any project. As engineers, they consider all of the different alternatives, pros and cons, costs, project schedules, and feasibility for any of these projects. He said they try to minimize their impact and look at their options. It may make more sense to mitigate on the project site, depending on various factors.
A. Miller said the last point he would like to make is that the Oakdale project is quite unique for Secondary Roads. They will very rarely be impacting this many acres of wetlands. Bridge and culvert jobs involving only a couple of tenths of an acre are more typical. He said this hasn’t been done for a long time due to the related environmental issues. This isn’t something the County will be dealing with every year, and this is the first time he has done a project like this in his entire career with the County. Neuzil said new roads are basically being charted. A. Miller agreed and said it is a new corridor through an environmental area.
Stutsman said maybe the County’s policy will be that they aren’t going to build roads that have huge impacts like this one. A. Miller said many different route layouts were considered, and this is the only way to get through the area, which is why it hasn’t already been done. Stutsman said maybe the committee should also tell the Board what is on the horizon in terms of large projects and potentially significant impacts. A. Miller said the Five Year Road Plan is being reviewed now, and he is not aware of any other projects on there for which the impact will be nearly as significant as for this one. Sullivan said the idea makes a lot of sense in terms of an ecosystem. If all of the bridge and culvert projects for the whole community can be put together to make five or ten acres, they will make a difference. A. Miller said although the Oakdale project brought this issue to a head, the current Board members will probably not be dealing with a similar situation again.
Johnson said there was a document in the Board packet from the Wellness Committee, and it has since been reviewed by Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell. He said he has now provided each Board member with a revised version. Rettig asked how much of it has changed. Johnson said he doesn’t think much substance changed, but he thinks the release was modified so it reads better.
Neuzil said the document includes a statement that the wellness area will be strictly used for that or for whom Johnson County provides wellness services. He asked who would be using the area besides County employees and if they are talking about the public using it. Johnson said that was written to include individuals who work in the Assessors’ Offices. He said that was one of Chappell’s questions because he thinks it was discussed that the policy wouldn’t apply to State employees in the Health and Human Services (HHS) Building, and Chappell then asked about the Assessors’ Offices. Neuzil asked if it is because the individuals who work in the Assessors’ Offices are not County employees. Johnson said that is his understanding. Sullivan said they are employees of the Conference Boards.
Rettig asked if the document states that non-County employees are not allowed into the employee wellness room and if that has changed. Facilities Manager David Kempf said he thinks that has to be modified because there will be State employees who take the elevator up to the third floor of the HHS Building to access the record storage area. Because they will be technically going through the area that is designated as wellness, he thinks the document needs to state that they are not allowed to use the employee wellness room as opposed to not allowed into it. He thinks that would be a simple change. Johnson said Chappell indicated that a specific spot for the employee wellness area needs to be designated rather than considering it to include the whole third floor. The change needs to be made because there are people who access the floor for a number of different purposes. Sullivan said the Employee Appreciation Lunch was also held on the third floor, and he assumes they could still do something like that.
Kempf said he also thinks that same sentence in the document should be broken up. The first sentence should state that non-County employees are not allowed to use the employee wellness room. There should be another sentence stating that County children, family members, and/or friends are not allowed to use the space. Health Promotion Coordinator Katie Miller asked whether those individuals should be allowed in the area. Kempf said he doesn’t think they should be allowed up there. Stutsman agreed. Kempf said he thinks it should be made very clear that the area is for County employees and other designated individuals.
Rettig asked about the change to allowing individuals who work for boards. Sullivan said it is in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the policy. Johnson said the policy states ‘or employees for whom Johnson County provides wellness services’. Rettig said the first bullet below then has to be modified. It says ‘non-County employees are not allowed to use the employee wellness room’. She said it is contradictory to the above sentence. Kempf said maybe it should say non-County employees or designees or something like that. Johnson agreed that it should be clarified.
K. Miller said some services are provided to State employees, such as those who work for the Department of Human Services (DHS). Although a cost is sometimes involved, they are allowed to participate. Stutsman suggested using the same verbiage that was used in the previously mentioned sentence. Sullivan said it could state that only employees for whom Johnson County provides wellness are allowed so it is positive instead of negative.
Rettig asked if the County provides wellness for State employees. K. Miller said yes, kind of. For example, State employees can sometimes participate in a service, such as Heart Health Checks, if they pay more for the particular service than a County employee would. She said State employees paid for flu vaccines while County employees didn’t. Neuzil said State employees can’t use the third floor. Johnson said he thinks that is the question. K. Miller agreed. Neuzil said he thinks that is based in part on insurance implications. It came down to liability, and there are a lot of State employees in this community. Stutsman said the first question is whether State employees should be able to access the area. Neuzil said he doesn’t think so unless they are participating in a wellness program for which they are paying. For example, they could potentially have to use a treadmill for 10 minutes as part of a heart health check. That kind of thing seems different to him. Kempf said the consensus is not to allow State employees to have free and equal access to the equipment. Neuzil agreed, indicating that the County already has insurance and liability for the employees who would be allowed to use the area.
Johnson said the individuals covered by the policy may just need to be defined and used throughout the document. Stutsman agreed that it needs to be clearly stated. Johnson said the consensus is that the wellness area is for County employees and individuals who work in either the City Assessor’s Office or the County Assessor’s Office. Sullivan said the first chapter should indicate who the individuals are and that they are henceforth referred to as ‘the employee’, as Chappell does in other documents. From there on, the word ‘employee’ could be used alone.
Stutsman asked if Emergency Management personnel and Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) personnel are considered County employees. Rettig said she thinks people who are eligible for County health insurance should be eligible to work out in the room. Kempf said that might be a good way to do it. Sullivan agreed and said that would cover personnel of the Assessors’ Offices. Rettig asked if individuals who work for the Conservation Board or the Board of Health or in the Assessors’ Offices are eligible for County health insurance. Neuzil said that may be an easy way to do it. Stutsman said that would include Chatham Oaks employees because they have health insurance through the County. Sullivan said that is a good point. Rettig asked if the County already maintains liability for them then. Stutsman said she doesn’t think they do.
Neuzil said he agrees that the Board wants County employees to use this equipment. Rettig agreed that they want people who have County health insurance to use it so they will be healthy. Stutsman indicated that there are retirees who have County health insurance and asked if they want retirees to be able to use the wellness area. Neuzil said those are good questions. Stutsman said it is not cut and dried who has County health insurance.
Sullivan suggested specifically naming which departments are eligible to use the wellness area in the first paragraph and indicating that they will henceforth be referred to as ‘the employees’ throughout the document. Stutsman said there are some County employees who don’t have health insurance. Rettig agreed and said that is why she said if a person is eligible for it. K. Miller said the phrase benefit eligible employees has been used in the past to define who can receive free flu vaccines. Rettig said that makes sense to her, if the details can be worked out, because the whole point is to make the insurance pool healthier.
K. Miller asked if they are worried about the retirees or Chatham Oaks employees. Neuzil said they could say ‘current employees’. Stutsman said she thinks the included individuals should be defined. Sullivan agreed. Kempf said it won’t take long to list the eligible departments. Rettig said people are anxious to start working out in the wellness area and asked if there will be a delay. Stutsman asked if the equipment is there. Kempf said no, the Wellness Committee is waiting on the policy because the equipment will be used once it is up there.
Rettig asked how long it will take to make the list and if the Board can vote on it at their next Formal Meeting. Johnson said Chappell has already done this work so he thinks revisions can be made, and the item can be placed on an Informal Meeting agenda and then a Formal Meeting agenda. Stutsman asked if the item can just be put on the Formal Meeting agenda since it has been discussed at the current meeting.
Neuzil said if there will be significant changes the Board may want to discuss it at an Informal Meeting. Stutsman suggested passing around the changes that are going to be made and just putting it on the Formal Meeting agenda if the Board members are all okay with it. Rettig asked if the Board could potentially vote on it February 4, 2010. Neuzil said yes. Rettig said that is okay with her.
Kempf said he and his staff will be more than happy to assist with moving the equipment but the County will need to contract with someone to move the equipment and set it up right. Neuzil said they need to address the cost of this and he also asked what the equipment is and if there will be radios or TVs. Kempf said there is nothing yet and he thinks those decisions will have to come from the Wellness Committee. Neuzil asked if there is a budget. Johnson said not yet. K. Miller said they have been considering grants for equipment. Right now they have a few treadmills, stair climbers, bikes, free weights, and weight equipment. Stutsman asked if Kempf needed more direction for setting the equipment up. Kempf said he will get with K. Miller and the Wellness Committee to contract with Play It Again Sports or Second Wind to move the equipment and make sure it is set up. That is part of the liability issue. Sullivan asked if the documents are ready to go for the appropriate people. Kempf said they already are.
Stutsman asked if Kempf has measured the distance up there. Kempf said it is an eighth of a mile and that does not go into the record storage area. Kempf said when they do this they might have hours during the day they will open up the doors for walking times and he will work that out with the Wellness Committee. He said they will probably put down a couple stripes as a path for people to follow. Stutsman said there is a Department Head Meeting coming up and she asked Kempf if he could give a brief overview of the equipment and how to access it. Sullivan said K. Miller could maybe do something. K. Miller said they are planning an open house for the facility which will include demonstrations on how to use the equipment.
Rettig said Blue Cross/Blue Shield gave her a Pedometer when she was at the Iowa State Association of Counties (ISAC) meeting recently. She said she wondered if they would be willing to donate stuff. K. Miller said they can look into that. Kempf said they are waiting on feedback from County Insurance Agent of Record Bob Saunders. Johnson said he received an email from Saunders saying he sent the policy to the Iowa Communities Assurance Pool (ICAP). He said that, as the County insurance agent, Saunders wouldn't write the waiver and what the Board approves will be fine with ICAP.
Kempf said Johnson has been contacted by US Cellular about their desire to erect a tower on the County Farm. He said he has no additional information. Johnson said he forwarded the letter to the Board. The proposal from US Cellular is to have a lease for a tower for $750 per month and then the ability for other companies to lease additional spaces there. Sullivan asked why anything at the County Farm would not just go on what is at the JECC. Stutsman said they probably won’t let them. Neuzil said it is the County’s land and they are talking about the County Farm, not just the little section of the JECC. Rettig asked why they wouldn’t put it on the tower that is already there.
Neuzil said they wouldn’t want anything that would interfere with the JECC operations, reminding others that that is why they chose the current location. Stutsman asked if they are talking about a tower. Kempf said his understanding is that they want to put up a cell tower. Stutsman asked if the location has been sited. Kempf said no. Johnson said the map they attached to the letter suggested possible locations. The letter identified the tower as a 140 foot monopole telecommunication tower. He said they are interested in leasing a 35 by 40 foot parcel of land for the tower and equipment shelter building encompassed by a chain link fence.
Sullivan said this is a future development area. Neuzil said he wishes the Board would look at the initial draft of a plan for the area and put it in an area they designated as public. Sullivan said along Slothower is where they were talking about housing. Stutsman said they may need to revisit the County plan. She doesn’t want it next to Chatham Oaks either; she feels they have pushed the envelope with imposing on them. Sullivan said there are many questions. Johnson said the purpose of discussing it now was to determine whether the Board wanted to give direction to move forward. Neuzil said he is interested in that only if it fits into the public area they have designated for that land and if it has no interference with the JECC. He said his hunch is that they will have an issue with it. Sullivan said he thinks there are more caveats than that. He said he doesn’t want it to interfere with the cemetery, Chatham Oaks, or the JECC communication tower.
Stutsman asked if there are three Board members who are okay with Johnson and Kempf getting more information. Neuzil said he thinks they could look at other land owned by the County, and maybe the tower could potentially be built on the Secondary Roads site. He said that is $750 that could go to the Wellness Committee. Dvorak said they deal with a lot of cell towers and $750 is really cheap. Neuzil said they would want to negotiate that to be a little higher. Dvorak said they deal with towers between $1,800 and $2,500 a month.
Kempf said I Wireless wants to put up a booster antenna on the HHS Building. It is a series of four microwave dishes that pick up phone calls and relay them to their outlying towers. He said they have had some proposed leases that Chappell has reviewed. The hang up is that I Wireless is requesting a minimum of a 15 year lease. Kempf said they want to protect their investment. The equipment would be inside the curtain wall that is on the roof of the building, so no equipment would be visible. The actual dishes would be mounted on the outside of the screen wall. Kempf said nothing would protrude above the curtain screen that surrounds the mechanical equipment on the roof of the building.
Neuzil asked Kempf if he has any concerns. Kempf said no, and that he can understand why they want to protect their investment. It will take quite a bit of work and engineering, and they are purposing in excess of $20,000 worth of equipment. Kempf said I Wireless is proposing $600 a month which is comparable for that type of installation. Stutsman asked if they would be able to use their cell phones in the HHS building. Kempf said he would hope so. Rettig asked if that microwave signal would cause problems with any other communication mediums currently installed. Kempf said his understanding is that it won’t affect the wireless internet, any other wireless carrier, or any microwave transmissions. Sullivan asked if Kempf checked with Information Technology Director Jean Schultz. Kempf said he talked to Network Administrator Bill Horning about it. The waves broadcast on a completely different frequency than the other things, so what they are proposing shouldn’t create any interference at all. However, Kempf said he will make sure a statement to this effect will be included in the lease.
Stutsman asked if I Wireless came up with rental rate. Kempf said they haven’t settled on the amount yet. He said Chappell’s concern was the 15 year lease. Stutsman asked if they would pay $600 for 15 years. Kempf said no because there are programmed increases. Sullivan asked if they have their own insurance. Kempf said yes, they would have to have insurance and liability insurance. They would need access to the building which is easy enough to accomplish using the key card access system. Kempf said he would receive electronic notification when they access the building, but he would also include in the agreement that they would need to contact someone by phone.
Stutsman said that with frequent changes in technology, will I Wireless be expected to get rid of the equipment if they don’t use it anymore. Kempf said yes, they have to remove it. I Wireless would bring their own power line into the building and use their meter. Kempf said he doesn’t have a lot of concern about the 15 years. Stutsman said she would be surprised if they use it for 15 years. Kempf said he would be surprised if the technology doesn’t change and there are clauses in the lease that both parties can get out, if need be. Kempf said he needs to finalize things with Chappell and bring a formal proposal to an informal meeting.
Neuzil asked if this will help people who have Verizon or other carriers. Kempf said this will help anybody who uses a T-Mobile or AT&T network which is the 3G network. He said his understanding is that there are two carriers and he doesn’t know which ones it will effect. I Wireless is partnered with T-Mobile, AT&T, and many others. Kempf said his understanding is that it will help any cell phone that uses that type of network. He said he sent an email to different companies about how to increase cell phone coverage within this building and I Wireless was the first to respond. I Wireless told him they are looking to increase their network coverage in the Iowa City area and are having difficulties finding some place to do this. Sullivan said it will help a several block radius. Stutsman asked if Kempf had enough direction. Kempf said he will include this proposal on the next Informal Meeting agenda. Stutsman said she would like Kempf to negotiate as high as possible.
Kempf said if there is agreement from Board members, he would like to move them into the new Board offices February 3, 2010. Neuzil said that if there is still remodeling noise to contend with, such as sawing and hammering, he would prefer to stay in the HHS Building until that's complete. Kempf said the noise should be very minimal. They will be testing the audiovisual equipment and installing carpet. Kempf said they won’t be doing anything in the office areas. Neuzil asked if they determined where each Board members office would be, and if everyone was comfortable with being in the same order they were in prior to the remodeling. Kempf said his understanding was that everyone was going into the same order that they were. Rettig said that was the last time they talked about it. Sullivan said he thought that’s what it was. Rettig said the person who is not here isn’t happy with that arrangement. Kempf said he thinks he took care of the issues and he is fine with the arrangement now. Rettig said she doesn’t have enough boxes and Kempf said he will bring more boxes. Johnson said they flattened a bunch when they moved. Stutsman asked if Kempf wants them packed up by February 3, 2010. Kempf said ideally they will have things ready to go. Johnson asked Kempf if he plans to move the other Board offices on the same day, and Kempf said yes.
Stutsman said having the skywalk open is just wonderful. Sullivan said when they start officially moving meetings back to the Administration Building they need to make sure the public is informed since they have gotten used to coming to the HHS Building. Kempf said if anyone does come to the HHS Building by mistake, they will be able to walk across the skywalk.
Rettig asked if the County received a grant to replace the windows in the Administration Building. Kempf said yes. Rettig asked if windows in the entire building will be replaced. Kempf said yes, that is scheduled to start this spring. Rettig said she doesn’t think a lot of department heads know about this. Kempf said they will be informed. The window replacement project didn’t coincide with the remodel in the Administration Building because they didn’t have the grant money in time. Rettig asked if they will need to be out of their offices during the window replacement. Kempf said there will be a fair share of the work that is done on weekends. Stutsman asked Kempf to let the Board know when the replacement will begin. Kempf said about 80% of the work will be done from the outside of the building.
Kempf said he is trying to finalize some items in the HHS Building. Tricon Construction Group is not happy about it but he is not going to let it go until they are done right. He said they are still working on the custom cabinetry at SEATS and Secondary Roads in the vault room. There is a new cabinet builder and the plans have been approved. Kempf said S&G Materials wants to get that done because they are not getting the rest of their retainer until that is complete. Sullivan said there are still doors that don’t seem to operate correctly. Kempf said that is one of the things on his list. Sullivan asked if Kempf still needs people to report those issues to him. Kempf said they can. Some of those problems would be warranty items, but those aren’t the type of things keeping them from closing out the project. He said the things that are keeping them from closing out the project are masonry issues on the outside of the building, some door frames that were dented and misaligned during installation, and a couple storage rooms where walls still need to be mudded, taped, and finished.
Rettig said the outside door downstairs has a large gap which isn’t energy efficient. She said there are rooms on one side of the building that, when the wind is blowing, the room is freezing. In addition, some of the drywall has already started splitting. Kempf said the drywall is an issue to be addressed. If there are air mitigation issues, someone needs to tell Kempf about that, because that shouldn’t be happening. Kempf said offices with exterior walls will be cooler than those on the interior of the building. However, he does need to make certain that the thermostat settings are correct. In general there is one thermostat for six offices, and if one person has it turned down, it will be cool in those six offices. He said they need to make sure it is functioning correctly and there is no reason why is should be set at anything other than 72 degrees in the space. Rettig said there is an office where the vertical filing cabinets are together at the floor but gapped at the top, meaning the floor is not level. Kempf said floors in any building are never 100% level. The cabinet, which might not be perfect either, might be placed where there is an expansion joint in the floor, or something could have occurred when the concrete was poured. Kempf said he will take a look at that area.
Stutsman asked if there were other major issues Board members wanted to address. Neuzil said he has a few things to discuss. Stutsman said she knows, but she thinks they need to keep this discussion going too. Neuzil said that is exactly why the Board holds Key Issues Meetings, but if conversation is going to be cut short, that's fine. Stutsman said she doesn’t think it is a good use of time to talk about little gaps between filing cabinets. Neuzil agreed. Rettig said she does think it matters because it is a structural engineering problem and the building is already falling apart. Kempf said the building is not falling apart. Kempf said he does not agree with the statement that the building is falling apart. Rettig said she doesn’t think a brand new building should have cracked drywall and floors that aren’t level. Neuzil said those concerns are being addressed before the construction company will be paid. Kempf said those issues have been addressed and he is working to resolve them the best he can.
Neuzil said almost every employee wants to know the plan for when they are going to lose parking places. Kempf said his hope is to turn the gates on the week of February 1, 2010. He and his staff have been gone and he has been trying to focus on getting the projects in the Administration Building done. Neuzil said he isn’t suggesting that it needs to be done in the next week. He was just asking for an update. Kempf said he talked with Schultz about turning on the parking gates for some test runs. Stutsman asked if April was still the target date to start charging for parking. Kempf said that is what he expects.
Neuzil asked if employees will be allowed to continue parking in the Administration Building and the Armory lot, or will they be expected to park in the ramp so usage can be recorded. Kempf said his understanding from the last conversation was that the Parking Committee was going to discuss those questions. Sullivan asked Stutsman if the Parking Committee scheduled another meeting. Stutsman said she doesn’t think they did and they were going to wait until the middle of March. Sullivan said they were going to wait until Kempf told them it was time.
Neuzil said, regarding the grant for the Armory building, he asked what kind of progress has been made to guarantee the County's eligibility for funding. Kempf said Neumann Monson Architects is working on the design and MMS Consultants has been contracted to do the civil engineering. He said bills for those services will be coming in and they can submit those as proof the project is moving forward. Johnson said the State has what they need for the grant template and the grant agreement. Neuzil said that is still on track, and asked if the Space Needs Committee will work on figuring out what they want to do with that space. Kempf said the concept is developed but they need to work on the details with the Space Needs Committee.
Neuzil asked for a status report on the study of the Ambulance building. Kempf said Neumann Monson is working on that, and they did rule out the use of the old Public Health Building. He said they also have great concerns about using the portion of the Armory property because a majority of that area is in a flood plain. Kempf said if they build up an area of it, the water would just go some place else and he doesn’t think that is the right approach. He said they want to keep a portion of that property out of their proposed plan so that in the future, they have the flexibility to do something with the property. Kempf said they are looking at evaluating the current Ambulance site and using the Fisher Building immediately to the north. Sullivan asked if they are going to sell the old Public Health Building. Kempf said yes, and he has been contacted by the Crisis Center who has shown a real interest in the building. The appraisal on that property was in the $400,000 range. He said this would be a great fit if they could find a way to help the Crisis Center with that property, but at the same time, they don’t want to give it away.
Sullivan said if there is someone the Board wants to sell it to specifically, they have to be careful because they are a public entity and would have to get an appraisal. Stutsman said they would have to go through the whole public hearing process. Sullivan said they wouldn’t have to sell to the highest bidder, but would be able to set a minimum amount in order to recover for the taxpayers. Stutsman said they were going to wait to get the final determination about the Ambulance department and then start. Kempf said they can move forward because it has been determined that the old Public Health Building is not an option. Sullivan said they should talk to Chappell. Stutsman said they should start talking about disposal of that property. Rettig said she doesn’t see why they would need it for any other purpose. Neuzil said it is on the Space Needs Committee agenda. Rettig wondered about the plan for using the Fisher Building for Ambulance expansion and asked if it would be phased construction.
Kempf said it all depends on the approach. They are looking into whether they can reutilize the current Ambulance building and then build an office/housing structure that can be connected. He said they might tear down the Fisher Building and build an all new construction there, and then remove the old Ambulance building. Kempf said another option would be to take everything out of there and build one facility. He said they are trying to figure out the most cost effective plan. During the process they met with Medical Examiner Administrator Mike Hensch to get his opinion. Kempf said at first they thought there would be a lot a crossover, but it seems that there are more differences than similarities in his requirements. They will be looking at how they can maintain the separation and combine the two, or to have two entirely separate structures. Kempf said Hensch had concerns about sharing the garage space because of the condition of some of the victims transported by his staff and the issues they have cleaning their vehicles. He said that Neumann Monson has been instructed to make sure they keep the costs for the two separated out.
Sullivan asked what they do now. He assumed they transport bodies to a hospital or funeral home. Kempf said that would be a question for Hensch. Sullivan said he thinks this is a red herring, and asked when there are ever bodies sitting around in vehicles. Rettig said the decomposed body stinks up the truck, and even after they remove the body from the truck, the truck will smell for up to a week. They put air purifiers in it and they disinfect it, but there are still a lot of problems with smell. She said they are currently doing this in the parking garage. Sullivan said he has never head anyone complain about a bad smell. Rettig said it is in open air. Neuzil said if it is in a garage, then it will smell. Sullivan said then they should keep the trucks in open air. Stutsman said they want the trucks to be warm during the winter. Kempf said there are other issues as well, such as laundry facilities. Rettig said there are times when they are not able to move a body because the County is currently leasing that space from funeral homes. They have envisioned space where up to two bodies could be stored in freezers in an emergency situation when there is no room in the funeral homes.
Neuzil said those are the issues the Space Needs Committee can work on, and nothing has been determined as far as a location. Sullivan said as with any building, there is a dream of what the building could be, and there is what the Board will pay for. Kempf said they are working toward a project that has a reasonable chance of succeeding.
Planning and Zoning Assistant Planner Josh Busard said ultimately, he is looking for direction from the Board on where to go. But before that, he wanted the Board to know that he talked with Sullivan and Rettig about the possibility of coming up with a green team or sustainability committee. He said he has had some initial conversations with SEATS Director Tom Brase, K. Miller, Kempf, and the Human Resources staff who agreed to lend some assistance. Busard is still waiting to hear from Graves. He said he thinks convening a committee would be a good way to have some more ownership on this plan. Busard said he was thinking about a ten-person committee plus someone from Secondary Roads, a GIS member, a Board member, and some at-large County employees. Stutsman said it sounds good to her. Sullivan said it makes sense to spread the wealth.
Busard said he would like to get some clear guidance from the Board about how they should proceed implementing some of the measures of the Green House Gas Plan. He said he thinks it would be important that the Board formally appoint this committee. Stutsman asked if there are issues with formally appointing a committee, such as posting agendas and taking minutes. Johnson said that for an internal committee the Board doesn't necessarily want formal appointments, but could give informal approval. Sullivan said it will be difficult for Busard to implement the plan if the Board doesn't back the committee and really make people do the work. He said it might be helpful that this is in the new performance evaluation and people will be evaluated according to whether they follow the policy. Sullivan said he thinks Busard is also asking for Board support to get people off the dime. Rettig asked if they are getting 80% by 2040. Busard said by 2050. Rettig said they should get going then.
Busard said it will be important to develop specific goals and have the Board set some deadlines. He suggested the Board set a deadline for a pilot van pool program which he and Brase have done some ground work for. Busard said he thinks a van pool is a viable option, the University of Iowa is successful with it and so are many other entities. Stutsman asked Busard how he would like to proceed with forming the committee. Busard said they have prepared a list. Sullivan said Johnson’s point is that if they have formal approval, then that group has to have minutes and notice of their meetings.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator RJ Moore said to get departments to understand that the Board supports this, Busard could share the list with the Board who could then send a letter asking for participation. This would lend creditability to the effort and would set a Green Team in motion. Moore said then this Green Team can set deadlines, goals, and objectives. Sullivan said Busard could draft a letter for Stutsman to sign. Busard said he could do that. Moore said it would be an invitation from the Board to invite someone on the team. Rettig said she thinks that if they are going to proceed, there has to be a broad buy in. She said there is not a budget line for a Green Team but if they rent the cell phone tower they might have money to put aside for this. Sullivan said Busard said this committee must include Kempf. Busard said that Kempf said he would be a part of it. Rettig said Busard thought a Supervisor should serve on the Green Team. Stutsman asked if there was a volunteer. Rettig volunteered. Stutsman said they should also ask Harney, who is absent, if he has an interest, and that it wouldn’t hurt to have two Board members on the committee. Busard said he will draft a letter and get it to the Board. Sullivan said he thinks the Board would be willing to assign a timeline to the goals, but the committee should meet first. Stutsman agreed. Busard agreed and said the committee will identify the top three goals and set deadlines.
Johnson said this is on the agenda for the Board to discuss how to conduct their own internal evaluations. Human Resources Coordinator Dana Winkowitsch said she came in case the Board has any questions about the evaluations or things they can discuss that can be taken back to the committee. Sullivan said his biggest concern with the new form is that people to be very clear about when an entry is or isn’t "non-applicable". Human Resources Coordinator Dana Winkowitsch said originally the reason they included the "non-applicable" option is because there is a separate management section. Sullivan said they should put that in the instructions for using the form. Neuzil asked Winkowitsch if she got feedback from any other department heads that had concerns. Winkowitsch said Hensch gave some suggestions and Social Services Coordination Amy Correia gave no formal suggestions but said the form looks good. Neuzil asked if the committee is reconvening before the Department Head Meeting. Winkowitsch said yes, on February 8, 2010.
Stutsman said she didn’t see a lot of difference between this form and what they have done in the past. She said the two liaisons take the lead to fill out the form and write comments. Then the entire Board reviews it for additions, revisions, or changes. Neuzil said he doesn’t think the current process is very good because he thinks the liaisons have a better knowledge of what the department heads are doing. He said he thinks the Board has the authority to change the number that has been submitted by the two liaisons. Now, with the details included on the new evaluation, he would feel uncomfortable filling in some numbers without general knowledge. Neuzil said he could get that general knowledge but he would have to meet with each department head a lot more. Originally the idea was that the Board didn’t want Supervisors doing that all the time. He said that at that time, it was taking a lot of their time and the department heads’ time.
Rettig asked if Stutsman meant that only the liaisons would score, or only fill out the comment section. Stutsman said that only the liaisons would actually fill out that form. Rettig said there would be no scoring by anyone else. Stutsman said yes, and then the Board would discuss the scores and make changes if agreed upon. Sullivan said all five of the Board members own the evaluations whether they like it or not. He said, hypothetically, if two Supervisors who are the low scorers say no one deserves more than a score of two, and Dvorak has those two Supervisors as his liaisons, then Planning and Zoning will lose money the next year unless the other three Supervisors have the opportunity to raise that score. Neuzil said they do have that opportunity to bring it up. Sullivan said he doesn’t want to lose the opportunity. He said he wants the evaluations to reflect the whole Board. Stutsman said she thinks that is what they do.
Neuzil said the original form refers to a set of skills that have been accomplished over the last year. The liaisons should know what type of progress that individual is making. He said if he is expected to score something specifically, it makes it more difficult. Rettig said she doesn’t see how the new form is different from the old form. On the old form, a number was assigned to the subset that included all these items. The new form just breaks it out into more lines to score one thing. Rettig said all the department heads have been told that the Board would appreciate an update every month, along with the liaison meeting. She said she agrees with Sullivan that there could be one person consistently over scoring. Then the Board, without having had any input, will have to argue with that person to lower it. Rettig said she would rather have the Board score all the areas and the liaisons write the comments.
Neuzil said he is not suggesting that the three Board members who are not the liaisons don’t come prepared for a discussion. However, to average the score of the non-liaison Supervisor with the liaison who has had the opportunity to evaluate just isn’t fair to any of the department heads. Neuzil said if the Board wants to do it that way, he needs to know that because he will then meet with department heads every month so he is prepared to give a fair score. Stutsman said she agrees with Neuzil, and that the system has worked up until now. She said she is comfortable with the two liaisons filling out the form and then bringing it to the whole Board for discussion and adjustments. Neuzil said he would like to have the form completed a little earlier so all five Board members would be able to read it ahead of time and be more prepared for a discussion.
Sullivan said he doesn’t have any objection to trying this, but he doesn’t think their system is broken and therefore doesn’t want to do anything too radical to alter it because he thinks they have been getting good results. Rettig said it wouldn’t be the same system. There would be two people scoring, and the other three people would have verbal input at a meeting. She said in the current system the fives scores are averages and then they discuss whether or not that average should change. If only two Supervisors score, they will have an average of two. Sullivan said then the Board will have to discuss if it should change. Rettig said if she was scoring someone she would need the same level of knowledge that is in the current form. The current form has one number for each skill set and the new one will have subsets. She said they still need the level of knowledge they have used in the past.
Neuzil said in the past he has had a difficult time scoring when he is not the liaison. He said that the design of the new evaluation form includes very detailed individual sections, which he thinks are very good and he added that the form is fantastic, but it would be difficult to specifically score each item if he is not the liaison. Stutsman said she had the same concern with the old form. She said she would just record an average which was not based on a lot of facts. She said she doesn’t know if she could justify the score without being the actual liaison. Long ago the Board decided that they didn’t want department heads to have five intense evaluations and that they were comfortable delegating that to liaisons. Stutsman suggested they try this for awhile. Rettig said if in a few months the Board finds themselves spending too much time discussing the scores they might decide to go back to the old system. She said that as an outsider for the past few months, she has observed the current system to be working fine.
Johnson said Dvorak has been working on the removal of the west approach of the Sutliff Bridge and that is completed. Johnson said he has been working with FEMA to determine if more costs will be covered under their codes and standards. He said that Parker wrote a letter that indicates the codes and standards used on County projects, and that is what FEMA needed to move forward. Johnson said the Board received a letter from the Conservation Board responding to their questions. He asked if the Board needed more information. Neuzil asked if the Board received a letter back from the Conservation Board. Rettig said it was emailed to them and in the email they asked for an answer.
Sullivan said he talked to Graves about this recently. He said the questions in the email are really questions that should be directed to the Sutliff Bridge Authority. Neuzil said he finds it strange that the Conservation Board currently manages the ramp that is right next to this, and seems to have no problems doing so. He said he doesn’t know why managing the bridge couldn’t be an extension of that. Sullivan said the questions focus on maintenance costs but those aren’t questions the Board can answer. Rettig said Conservation manages the ramp for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR.) She said the Conservation Board asked her to ask DNR to fund that and they did. DNR paid for the underscoring of the ramp. Stutsman said she thinks they are anticipating a lot more of a project maintaining the Sutliff Bridge than what they put into the ramp. Neuzil said maybe the Sutliff Committee could get together to discuss the letter. Stutsman asked who took former Supervisor Larry Meyer’s position on the Sutliff Committee. Neuzil said no one has. Stutsman asked if the Board would like the Committee to meet. Neuzil said Graves is on the committee and can advise the Board.
Sullivan said he thinks the Sutliff Bridge Authority is going to send a letter to them or the Conservation Board to answer the questions that are applicable to the Authority. Neuzil said they need to figure this out while FEMA continues to identify more funding streams for this project. Dvorak asked if the Board is resurrecting the Sutliff Bridge Committee. Stutsman said it sounds like it. Dvorak said Meyers was on it. Rettig asked if that meant she is on the Committee. Neuzil said not necessarily, because there is one Supervisor on right now. Dvorak said himself, Neuzil, Graves, Parker, and Johnson. Sullivan said he doesn’t think that committee will have to meet a lot and they don’t have to worry about the membership. Johnson said depending on the topic, some people from the Sutliff Bridge Authority would come. Neuzil said a subcommittee can sort out the letter and bring the information back to the Board of Supervisors to move forward.
Dvorak asked if the only things left are the response to the Conservation Board and the finances which Johnson is working on. Neuzil said yes and a determination by the Board if it should accept those dollars. Rettig asked if FEMA has been provided all the information necessary for them to make their decisions and inform the Board. Johnson said yes. Rettig asked how long it could be before they receive a response. Johnson said he doesn’t know.
Johnson said the landfill formally used the Iowa City database to determine who is eligible, and now they use the Johnson County database to determine eligibility. He said he received a call from a gentleman who became upset when he was told he could no longer use the landfill because he is a commercial property owner. The policy states that commercial property owners are not eligible to use the landfill. Johnson said that rental properties of one or two units are eligible, but three or more properties are classified as commercial. Stutsman asked if that applies to one property or one owner. Johnson said one property. Stutsman said there probably aren’t very many in the County. Johnson said either way it wouldn’t affect many people.
Sullivan said during the budget off season, he thought Johnson could talk to entities that use lobbyists to determine if it is worth it. He said he thinks if they conducted a study of who received Federal money in Eastern Iowa over the last ten years, Coralville would be a clear stand out among everyone else. Stutsman asked if Coralville has a lobbyist. Rettig said they have a lobbyist in Washington D.C. and in Des Moines. Sullivan said he would like to know if retaining a lobbyist is a good investment, because philosophically it doesn’t feel right at all. However, if this is how the game is played, he wonders if the Board should look into whether Johnson County is missing out on not having a lobbyist. Sullivan said he thinks the best way to do that is to instruct Johnson to conduct some peer networking. Stutsman said she thinks Coralville has been so successful because they have actively pursued money for specific projects. She said Johnson County might need to do an internal audit to determine which projects the Board would specially request funding for in order to justify hiring a lobbyist.
Sullivan referenced an article distributed to Board members and said the article states that one Polk County Supervisor said lobbyists are the greatest thing ever, and another one said the jury is still out. He said he doesn’t know if Polk County's population makes a difference but the City of Boone, with a population of 9,000, paid $100,000. Rettig said that Cedar Rapids and Linn County combined together for their lobbyist in Des Moines. One of the reasons this works for Cedar Rapids is that they have a lobbyist and a grant writer. Rettig said a lobbyist with no plan is a waste of money. She added that a decision to retain a lobbyist has to be part of a broader discussion about the Board's priories on finding outside sources of revenue. Stutsman asked if they can hire a lobbyist for one project. Sullivan said yes. Rettig said they can hire a lobbyist for one bill. Many times lobbyists represent several people. Sullivan said a lobbyist would have benefits at the State and Federal level.
Sullivan said he would like Johnson to get some information. Stutsman said this isn’t the year to do it because there is no money. Sullivan said he thinks this is something they would discuss over the summer and if they decided on a lobbyist, it wouldn't be until January 2011. Rettig said they wouldn’t have the revenue for that unless they budget for it now. Stutsman said that might be how they decide if they can afford it. Sullivan said it might be something for the 2012 budget. Rettig said she thinks it has to be in combination with how they are going to pursue outside funding streams. Having a lobbyist without a methodology doesn’t help. Stutsman said she is not certain how it would work to hire a joint lobbyist, and that there might be issues with how much time the person would devote to each entity. Rettig said she thinks it is only working for Cedar Rapids now because of the flood. Before that Cedar Rapids had its own lobbyist.
Rettig said they should pursue this in the off budget season and it has to be part of something broader. Sullivan said he would like Johnson to work on this in the next few months. Stutsman asked if three Board members are in agreement. Neuzil said he is okay with that, and he asked, if the Board is going to hire someone to improve the efficiency of County operations, would they pick a lobbyist, grant writer, central purchaser, or an information officer. He said they need to decide on their priorities. Sullivan said they need to look at the pros and cons of all theses different positions and the cost-benefit of each.
Johnson said Deputy Auditor Casie Parkins asked him if there will be a need for the Auditor’s Office to go along to take minutes at ISAC Day at the Capitol. Neuzil said he thinks she has gone if they all drive in one vehicle. Since it is an ISAC sponsored event, they don’t have to have the Auditor’s Office present, similar to any other ISAC event. Sullivan said he thinks it is a shame if Board members don't car pool. In addition, he said County Auditor Tom Slockett may choose to go and so Parkins wouldn’t have to. Neuzil said Slockett could serve in that capacity. Sullivan said if they could all ride in a SEATS vehicle that will be more efficient. Rettig said there are actually three days of ISAC. Neuzil said February 11, 2010 is the ISAC Day. Rettig said she can’t go on February 11, 2010 because she has the Natural Resources Commission. In addition, February 23, 2010 is Corridor Day at the Hill, which includes Linn and Johnson Counties, and March 4, 2010 is County Capitol Day at the Hill. Stutsman said February 11, 2010 is when the Supervisors’ affiliate goes.
Neuzil said Corridor Day is when they basically walk around and have lunch. He said he thinks they have had more than two Supervisors attend that. Rettig said they would do their own thing and wouldn’t sit down with the Johnson County delegation all at once. Neuzil said they do sit with the delegation. Stutsman said she will not go to the Corridor Legislative Day. Sullivan said he probably won’t either. Rettig asked if the Auditor has to be the minute taker or if it could be Johnson. Stutsman said she thought somebody needed to be there to take minutes and she doesn’t think they have to be verbatim minutes. Sullivan said he thinks this is a separation of powers issue, and that someone outside of the Board’s employ is taking minutes. Neuzil said the Auditor’s Office is the minute taker of the Board of Supervisors. Rettig said when Neuzil met with the Board of Health, the Board of Health took the minutes. Sullivan said they aren’t under the Board’s employment. Stutsman said to have Johnson see what the options are for minute takers.
Sullivan said he would like to take as few vehicles as possible to Des Moines. Stutsman said Linn County Supervisors have done that for years without taking a minute taker. Sullivan said that includes the City Assessor, County Assessor, Recorder, and everybody who goes to ISAC. He said one year he counted 23 County employees at ISAC in 19 vehicles. Stutsman said that may be something the green team needs to impose. Sullivan said that a few years ago, Schultz coordinated rides through email communications and it worked really well. He was able to ride up with one person and ride back with another.
Stutsman said February 23, 2010 is not an issue now because it sounds like there are not three people going. Sullivan said if Harney goes, there will be three. Stutsman asked Johnson to check with Harney to see if he wants to go. Rettig said she had it down to go because she can’t go on February 11, 2010. Johnson asked Neuzil if he is going with the Chamber. Neuzil said in the past he would go when the Chamber was more active in legislative affairs. He said that is a situation where they are talking about Chamber issues, similar to if more than two Board members attend a breakfast series, they are still all in the room, but if there is dialogue about a specific County issue, one of them needs to leave the room.
Stutsman asked if they need to decide if everyone is planning to attend County a Day on March 4, 2010. They also need to check about the minute taking. She asked Johnson to make plans for lunch for that day. Johnson asked for direction on making plans for lunch. Sullivan said they’ve typically gone to The Latin King restaurant or something like that. Stutsman suggested that Johnson contact Representative Mary Mascher and Senator Joe Bolkcom to see if and when they will be available for lunch. Stutsman said she thinks the plans for the ISAC Spring School on March 24, 2010 is pretty well covered.
Johnson said the County applied for a grant to put stickers on the newspapers to promote the Census. Those weren’t funded in part because of a timing issue. Iowa City City Clerk Marian Karr is now looking into sharing costs with Johnson County, and the cities of Coralville and North Liberty to put a front page sticker on the Iowa City Press-Citizen and the Cedar Rapids Gazette newspapers. Johnson said Karr said Coralville is willing to share costs for a sticker on the Press-Citizen. If they share the cost for a sticker on the Gazette, shared equally it would be about $1,250. Sullivan said the people they reach with those stickers are those who subscribe to newspapers and are not the people who don’t get counted. He said he thinks that is an absolute waste of money. Stutsman agreed with Sullivan. Sullivan said if he was to spend the money he would go to churches in undercounted neighbors and blanket targeted neighborhoods with flyers. Stutsman said she would go to the mobile home parks. Sullivan said he would rather spend $200 on copying and $1,000 to flyer each mobile home in the County.
Harney returned at 11:40 a.m.
Rettig said she doesn’t know if they would have to pay the people to distribute the flyers. She suggested there would be enough people who would volunteer for this work. Rettig said she will volunteer. Stutsman said she thinks today they are just talking about this one particular effort. She asked if Board members were interested in participating. Sullivan said he is not. Stutsman said she is not. Neuzil asked what the cost was to the County. Johnson said $1,250. Neuzil said no. Rettig said people who read the newspapers fill out the forms. Stutsman said there are at least four or five Supervisors not in favor.
Rettig said at the Fall School, she attended the Census presentation and learned that every person not counted will cost Johnson County a lot of money. Neuzil asked if Rettig is referring to County or City government. Rettig said both, for transportation money and human services. Any Federal, and a lot of State money, is based on population. She thinks they have a vested interest to make sure everybody in the County is counted. Sullivan said GIS Coordinator Rick Havel can be an important contributor to this because they make sure that Census people know where every house is. Neuzil said Havel is already actively involved in some of that. Stutsman asked if they want to discuss this at a future Key Issues Meeting. Johnson said only if the Board has ideas to give him. He said periodically Census information will be on the website. Stutsman said it would be worth while talking to Correia about this along with Community Projects Specialist LaTasha Massey. Sullivan and Rettig agreed. Rettig said they might want to form a small committee who can brainstorm ideas.
Sullivan said the eight largest school boards get together in the Urban Education Network. He said the ten or 15 biggest cities meet in some kind of cities network, but the counties don’t have anything like that. Sullivan said he thinks everyone has been a little frustrated with some of the ISAC meetings because there is a lot of time spent on issues for much less populated counties. The Blackhawk County Supervisors wanted to start meeting with people, and didn’t realize Johnson County meets regularly with Linn County. Sullivan said if they add a couple more counties they would be on their way to an Urban Caucus. He said they could arrange a meeting during ISAC, and even if ISAC doesn't embrace the idea, they can still do it. Sullivan said everyone he talked to at the meeting at the Marriott said they only benefited from the networking and didn’t learn anything from the sessions. Rettig said she learned things she didn’t need to know. Stutsman said she thinks a lot of rural Supervisors walked out when the discussion turned to LEED and Green Initiatives.
Neuzil said he is comfortable having two Supervisors attend the Urban Caucus and said the question is whether the Board wants to make this an official meeting with all of them attending. Harney said he thinks this is already a formal meeting, Linn County has a majority. Sullivan said they have their Auditor’s Office taking minutes. Neuzil said if it is a Formal Meeting of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, then their attendance is expected and it is uncomfortable if they do not have a good reason not to attend. Sullivan said it is going to be like ISAC where Supervisors are free to go if they choose, and minutes will be taken by the Linn County Auditor. Rettig asked the date of the next meeting. Stutsman said February 26, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. at Linn County. Rettig said she feels a need to go because she was assigned to two committees. Stutsman said she would like to go too. Stutsman said she might be out of town for the February 26, 2010 meeting.
Neuzil said there are no longer two Supervisors assigned to this and it is open to all members of the Board. It would be like the Public Leadership Summit. Rettig said if a Supervisor can go, they go, and if they can’t they don’t. Neuzil said the uncomfortable part of this is when the newspapers print who was in attendance and who was not there. Sullivan said the ideal goal would be that this gets incorporated into ISAC. He said one thing that really hurts ISAC is that Polk County hasn’t participated in three years. Sullivan said he thinks everyone benefits when the biggest County is involved and this could be a way to draw them back in. Neuzil said he likely will not be able to go to the meeting on February 26, 2010.
Neuzil asked Johnson to let the Board members know about the potential of an Open House for Conservation or the new Board Room. Stutsman said the Communication Committee talked about the Open House, but she does not know if they discussed Conservation. Neuzil suggested a press release saying they have officially reopened the Board offices in the Administration Building. He said the Board may want to develop a system whereby if a Supervisor who is assigned to a particular meeting is unable to attend, others are made aware of that so someone else can fill in. Stutsman said a system might be sending an email to all Board members saying they aren’t going and a replacement is sought. Neuzil said because of the lawsuit from the past, he will never send an email to the Board. Stutsman said she will not send emails to the Board either. Harney said he doesn’t think it would be an issue to send an email stating he can’t attend a meeting and anyone wishing to go, should go.
Neuzil said the problem with that is that then three Board members might show up. Harney said they have to be trained enough to respond appropriately. Neuzil said they can’t communicate with each other. Sullivan said he isn’t going to anything other than what he is assigned. Neuzil said the point is if a Supervisor can’t make it to something, someone else could go in their place.
Stutsman said there was a meeting she couldn’t attend and asked Harney if he could go and that worked just fine. Neuzil said they could do that but he said he didn’t know if there was an Outlook system they could set up. Stutsman said she thinks they could send an email saying they are unable to attend and Johnson can be the go-between. Neuzil asked if they could make Secretary II Jo Hogarty that person. Stutsman asked if Hogarty can do that. Johnson said yes. Neuzil said, for example, if he can’t go to a meeting next week, he will email Hogarty saying he can’t go, and then Hogarty would communicate that to the Board and coordinate it so that three of them don’t show up.
Sullivan said he doesn’t want all those emails in his inbox. Neuzil said he wants a Supervisor present at meetings if the assigned person can’t go. Rettig said they don’t talk about County issues at those luncheons. Neuzil said they do, and they are supposed to give a report. He said if a Supervisor is assigned to a meeting then they should go, and if someone is unable to go, a replacement should attend. Neuzil said he doesn’t think this will happen a lot. Johnson said they should give this system a try.
Stutsman said the next Key Issues Meeting is scheduled for February 24, 2010.
Adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
By Erin Heninger, Recording Secretary