MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 25, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek: Johnson County Jail Inspection Report.................................... 1
East Central Iowa Council of Governments Executive Director Doug Elliott: Annual Report........ 3
County Engineer Greg Parker: Approval of Sign Person Job Description Revision....................... 6
East Central Iowa Council of Governments GIS Specialist/Transportation Planner Hilary Copeland: Planning Grant Application for an Update to the Johnson County Hazard Mitigation Plan and Resolution Requesting the Total Project Cost and Committing 15% of the Total Project Cost as Local In-Kind Match....................... 8
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Andy Johnson.................................................. 9
Board of Supervisors: Solon Urban Renewal Area Amendment............................................... 11
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors............................................................... 14
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:22 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Jail Administrator Dave Wagner said they had the Jail inspection on January 29, 2010. He said that State of Iowa Chief Jail Inspector Delbert Longley goes over required documentation of staff training, prisoner files, jail policies and procedures, and then he tours the Jail to make sure they’re in compliance with all of those different issues. They do this on an annual basis.
Wagner said that Longley said that this was probably one of the best jail inspections they’ve had. Wagner was pleased with that. Wagner said Longley talked about the storage of the prisoner’s property at the Jail. They don’t have a lot of room for extra prisoner property. In fact, as the Board probably remembers, the Jail moved some of the property of the people the Jail houses out of County down into their sally port, and created an area for that overflow. Wagner said Longley’s general comment was to keep insuring the prisoner property is properly stored and identified. It’s not adequate and they all know that. The second item Longley talked about was the Jail’s classification and separation of prisoners as required by the Iowa Code. They’re shipping prisoners to Marshall County and other areas. He said they’re meeting that requirement of separation. It works best if they have even a few empty cells within a jail, so that when there are disagreements between prisoners the Jail can make those adjustments, without being absolutely full. He thinks Longley is satisfied with the job the Jail is doing, by moving people out of County to make sure that requirement is met.
Wagner said the last thing Longley commented on was that the Jail needs to be clean and sanitary. There are some items that Wagner has talked to Maintenance Supervisor Shari Butler about and Facilities Manager Dave Kempf. They need to go through each individual cell. He said there are some items that need to be worked on. Some of the inmates, from time to time, due to the way the bunks sit, there is a tendency for prisoners to pick at the caulking in the windows and dig it out. Then they have some heat loss through there. He said they’ve got to work on that. Occasionally, inmates don’t like the air that blows through their cells, and they throw wet toilet paper at some of the ventilation grates above the cells and plug them. That’s a continuous thing the Jail has to deal with. He said they’re going to make sure that those things are taken care of. Overall, it was a very good inspection and he credits that to the staff that works at the Jail on a day to day basis.
Stutsman said that’s a good report. Sullivan told Wagner that usually the Board gets a Jail report and most of the stuff is totally out of Wagner’s control, because it’s about the building. He said it sounds like the only things they can work on are some of things that Wagner mentioned. He asked if there is anything else in the report that Wagner thought there was something the Board could either work on through a different procedure or something else. Wagner said no. He thinks that cleanliness and due to the design of the Jail, the jailers can’t be in the cell all the time and know exactly what each prisoner is doing. If they had a different type of facility they could probably know immediately when an inmate is acting or doing something inappropriate.
Harney said that they’ve dealt with different jail inspectors in the past, and they’ve talked about exercise space and library space. He said Longley didn’t bring that up during this inspection. Wagner said the inspector other than not liking the size of the Board’s exercise room, didn’t really write anything up on it.
Rettig asked Wagner if he thinks he’ll be able to address the things that were identified in maintenance in the near future with Facilities or if they’ve already talked about that. Wagner said he talked to Butler about that. What they think they’ll do is go cell by cell and identify those things that need to be worked on. They’ll just move prisoners out of that cell area and take care of them one cell at a time. Rettig asked if Wagner has a timeline to finish that. Wagner said he thinks it’s one of those things they just need to make progress towards. Rettig said it seems like Wagner then has to periodically come back and do the exact same thing every six months or year.
Stutsman asked Wagner how old the Jail facility is. Wagner replied that it opened in 1981. Stutsman said OK. She thanked Wagner for all the work he does. She said she knows he has a practically impossible job trying to not only maintain the Jail, but to manage it as far as prisoners and moving people around. It’s a big job. Wagner said they have a lot of good staff that works for him in some tough conditions. They know they have a lot of support from the Sheriff, the Chief Deputy, and the Board.
Neuzil said they’re going to bring a Senior Citizen group up there on February 26, 2010, so he’ll have a firsthand look at some of those things. Stutsman said that’s good. She said she hopes more people take advantage of opportunities to tour the Jail. She asked if the virtual tour is still on the website. County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said yes, it’s still alive and well. He said one of the difficulties with the virtual tour is because when they look at it, people think they’ve heard so much about the Jail overcrowding, and there’s no way to really show that unless they visit the Jail on a day with a local football game when there are about 30 people in that holding cell that is not supposed to exceed ten. When they look at it, they can’t really see the signs and symptoms of the overcrowding problem, but they see a clean, well-maintained jail that’s about 30 years old. That’s because they have to. People can see what it’s like on the virtual tour, but they don’t get a true feeling for what all of the problems are that the Jail contains.
East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) Executive Director Doug Elliott passed out some handouts to the Board. Elliott said his purpose this morning is on an annual basis to visit with the Board and give an update on the activities ECICOG is involved in, in Johnson County. Also, it’s an opportunity for the Board to provide Elliott with feedback on those services or issues or activities that the Board would like to discuss with ECICOG.
Elliott said the first thing he handed out was a hardcopy of ECICOG’s annual report, which is actually intended to be an electronic document. To the greatest degree they try to create all of their documents in electronic format. He thinks it’s more aesthetically pleasing to view it on a computer screen, and they can access it on the ECICOG website and the Board can pass it along to others. They did approach this a little differently than they have in previous years. For those of the Board who have seen it before, starting back at page six in the handout, they present an inventory of all of the projects ECICOG has been involved in and each of the counties in their region. He reminded the Board that their regional boundaries are flexible depending on the issue. In addition to the six, what Elliott refers to as the “founding counties of ECICOG”, also include Cedar County for transportation and Tama County for solid waste, so they’ll see inventories for those counties as well.
Elliott said the other thing they did this year, is each department at the agency highlighted a program or project that they were either particularly proud of, or they thought was exemplary of the work ECICOG does or thought was unique to their region. He said he wanted to call the Board’s attention to a couple of those things.
Elliott said the first is the article in the Community Development Department about the regional business assistance Revolving Loan Fund (RLF). ECICOG did compete for this money on a national basis and they were able to secure $1.5 million from the Economic Development Agency (EDA) to create a business assistance Revolving Loan Fund. The monies were made available through that agency’s disaster supplemental appropriation, but those funds aren’t limited to benefit businesses that were directly affected by the disasters of 2008. For the majority they have been, but they are available to all businesses. To Elliott, the greatest impact of this resource is its revolving nature. It’s not just a recovery program; it’s really a redevelopment program. EDA awarded ECICOG $1.5 million, the Washington County Riverboat Foundation gave them a grant of $85,000 and the agency contributed $15,000. The total value of the RLF is $1.6 million. As of this report, ECICOG had loaned out just under $850,000. Pending the Board’s action today, they’ll be just approaching $1.3 million. To his surprise in the short existence of this program they will have loaned out almost the entire principle of the program. They’re moving more quickly than they anticipated to looking at resources to recapitalize that program.
Elliott directed the Board to page four of the handout. He said he wanted to bring to the Board’s attention that historically the Environmental Services Department had been known as Solid Waste Department. Their emphasis has historically been on solid waste programs and solid waste diversion and being responsible for the regional comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plant. ECICOG is hoping the renaming of the department is a commitment on their part as an agency to more aggressively assist their member governments in issues of sustainability and energy efficiency. By that, Elliott means promoting those issues in their planning efforts and assisting them in leveraging resources to carry those out.
Elliott directed the Board to page five of the handout. Page five features the first round of stimulus highway funding, in which Johnson County received just over $1 million for roads and just under $200,000 for transit capital. The reason he brings this is up, is it’s important to remember that regional planning affiliations, which is essentially ECICOG and is the non-metropolitan model of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), are local organizations. He said the decision by the State of Iowa to plan and program Federal dollars through those organizations is a local decision, meaning it was a decision made about 20 years ago. It’s not a Federally recognized body; it’s a Federally required body. In other states, those decisions are likely being made at the State level, the metropolitan level, or a combination of those two. The existence of the regional planning affiliation accomplishes two things for each of ECICOG’s counties. One, it guarantees access to those Federal funds, especially stimulus, and because at least at this point, they, as a region, suballocate it and it guarantees a minimum level of funding to Johnson County.
Elliott said the second handout is an attempt to answer a little better some questions Rettig asked him at the most recent meeting they were both present at. It isn’t complete, and that’s partially intentional. He said it’s kind of a way to take a snapshot of the economic impact that the agency has for Johnson County, which at any day and any point in time is going to look somewhat different. He said that’s why he chose to just provide a partial listing. That’s why he doesn’t provide any totals for the Board, because it’s dynamic.
Elliott said he’s talked a little bit about stimulus funding. The other thing he would mention is under the value of current operating programs, the Federal Home Loan Bank Housing Program, in addition to providing $127,000 in support of affordable housing in Johnson County is a significant matching source for the housing trust fund and allows the housing trust fund to access those additional State dollars for that program. It has an impact beyond its own life.
Elliott said under that category, the other thing he wanted to highlight, and he wants to make this distinction, Single-Family New Construction Round 1 is a State sponsored disaster recovery program. However, it’s a competitive program, and their region approached it somewhat differently than others. They made an argument to the Department of Economic Development that theirs is a regional economy and to limit that program. He said it was originally created to benefit communities that had lost housing units in the flood, which is a laudable goal. Their argument was that they are in a regional economy and that other communities might actually be replacing those housing units that were lost. For that reason, communities that are adjacent to or near the metropolitan area were allowed to benefit from this program. That’s unique to their region.
Elliott said they are looking at a second round to that funding. The Board will review that today. He doesn’t know the degree to which Johnson County will benefit from that, but there’s still the opportunity. He said he hopes that’s somewhat of a better response than he offered the Board the last time.
Rettig told Elliott she appreciates the further information from what they had at JCCOG. She wanted to note something in this annual report. She said this is the services to member governments and she would note that the City of Iowa City received services including Landfill Services Education and Promotion, Salvation Army Needs Assessment, Hazard Mitigation Plan, Community Solid Waste Educational Programs, School Solid Waste Educational Programs, University of Iowa Recycling Task Force Assistance, Fair/Expo Solid Waste Educational Programs, and Summer Library Reading Program. That’s just for the City of Iowa City, for example. Elliott said that’s correct. Rettig said that seems like a pretty good list. She noted that there were three new buses for SEATS coming into Johnson County. Elliott said that’s right. Rettig said it was because of the grants that ECICOG was able to secure. She thinks she heard from SEATS that around 65% of all use of SEATS is in Iowa City, and it might actually be a higher percentage than that. Elliott said he’d have to rely on SEATS Director Tom Brase for that information. Rettig asked Elliott if it’s correct that Iowa City gets assistance in the landfill from ECICOG also in addition to the education and promotion. Elliott said that’s right. He said ECICOG provides ongoing assistance to the landfill staff in diversion programs. Rettig asked if it’s safe to say that Iowa City gets a lot of services from ECICOG. Elliott said he would argue that they do.
Sullivan said the handout is a really impressive document and it helped him to recognize a lot of the different things that ECICOG is doing. He tends to think of ECICOG in fits and starts and doesn’t always look at the big picture like this. He said he thought it was great. He thinks it’s also worth mentioning all the help that they’ve received from GIS Specialist and Transportation Planner Hilary Copeland with the flood recovery. It’s just been tremendous, and he knows that’s been a lot of work and they’ve made it very easy on the people up here and the Board appreciates it. Elliott thanked Sullivan and said Copeland should be up soon so he can thank her personally. Stutsman said she would echo Sullivan’s comments. She said the amount of money that came through this agency this year was stimulus funding, but they did an outstanding job that that got distributed. Elliott thanked Stutsman. He said it will continue to come for quite a while. By that, he means that he knows the Board recognizes this, that the recovery from the disasters will be a long process. It has a significant impact on the agency, but he focuses on the positive.
Harney said the only note he’d make on this is, that ECICOG not only represents Johnson County, but they represent a five county area and provide the same services in all of those counties.
County Engineer Greg Parker said typically his department’s job descriptions would only come forward for the Board’s consideration if there was or has been substantial changes. In their review, because Secondary Roads has had, as the Board is aware, a couple of retirements in the department, this is one of the vacancies that was left by filling one of those retirement slots, and there were substantial changes. There wasn’t really anything monumental to change the pay grade for the position, but he thinks it was giving more definition of what the expectation was for the position, since it hadn’t been updated for a few years. He is working directly with Human Resources and his staff, he has Maintenance Superintendent Kevin Hackathorn and Road Surfaces Lead Person Kevin Braddock, present with him, as well as Human Resources Coordinator Vanessa Wierman. They’ve been working closely together to upgrade these, so they can begin to make sure all the language is correct for all the job descriptions throughout the department. This is just for the Board’s consideration.
Stutsman said that in Parker’s Executive Summary he said there is no budget impact; no changes. Parker said that is correct. There is no budget impact and the pay grade for the position stays the same. However, Parker thinks they are filling out what the actual language is and what the expectations are for the position. There wasn’t a lot of information in the previous job description, so they’re going through and upgrading and correcting all of those deficiencies. Stutsman asked Parker if this is a bargaining unit position. Parker said yes it is.
Rettig told Parker that she learned on February 24, 2010 when the Board had their liaison meeting with Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek that there are two sign positions. One is called Sign Person, which she thinks might be one of the neatest job titles they have in the County. Parker said the other job position is Sign Technician. Rettig said Parker actually has three and asked if he’s only been filling two. Parker said to his knowledge they only have two positions. They have the Lead Sign Person Gary Tigges. Rettig asked if that is the person who is retiring. Parker said that’s correct. Rettig asked if that was the person who was in charge of that unit. Parker said that’s correct. With his vacancy, the Sign Person, who was in this job description, applied for and has been offered that position, and will fulfill Tigges’s vacancy upon his last day of employment with the County. They’re upgrading the job description, so when they post it, it will be upgraded and up-to-date for those in the Union that would have an interest in applying for the position.
Rettig said she thought there were three potential job descriptions in that area and that Parker had currently been filling the middle one and the upper one. When the middle person moves up to the upper-level position, which would be Sign Technician, that's when Parker went to re-advertise it, he would actually be advertising for the entry-level one, so that there would be room for that person to potentially get promoted someday. Rettig asked if Parker was familiar with that. Parker replied no. Rettig asked if she misunderstood something on February 24, 2010. Harney said he thinks what it was, was the secondary-position was elaborated on, so that person could get more experience and expertise in the area of the lead position. He thinks there were just the two, if he remembered correctly.
Parker said to his knowledge, they only have two. There may be an intermediate one. He asked Hackathorn. Hackathorn said the way it’s designed is for the Sign Person to get experience in the Sign Department before they can move up to the Sign Technician position. This would be the lead person’s backup when they are gone. He said there are three positions. The Sign Technician position was created a few years ago, because after someone has been a Sign Person for so long, they start to take on more responsibilities, so that was another step for them. This is a start out for the Sign Person until they start learning the basics.
Rettig asked Hackathorn if he has a Sign Person, Sign Technician, and if the lead person is similar to a Sign Technician Lead. Hackathorn said the lead person is the direct report person for the Sign Person and the Sign Technician. They don’t fill all three positions at once. Rettig said that’s the way she understood it. Sullivan said they have three job descriptions and two approved positions. Parker said that’s correct. He said maybe he misinterpreted it. They’re only filling two, which is what they’ve always done. Rettig said that makes sense. Parker said there isn’t a budget change issue. Rettig said in this case it would actually be a reduction, because Parker would be bringing in an entry-level position. Parker said that’s correct. Rettig said Parker wouldn’t be filling the middle position. Parker said this position is equivalent to the Road Maintenance Person in the Secondary Roads Department. It’s an entry-level position for this specific activity. Stutsman said they’ll put on the agenda next week for formal approval, and then Parker can begin advertising and filling that position.
Copeland said this is an application she’s been working on with the Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson. What they are proposing to do is update the existing Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is about four months old. They do have a five year compliance period, so this is a bit early, but Copeland said she and Wilson think there are some advantages to updating now. This would allow the County to access the existing grant funding that is available following the floods. This would be funded under HMGP1763, just like their buyouts and the tornado shelter Conservation Director Harry Graves has also been working on. She said this would allow Wilson to roll in some of the smaller communities that are currently not eligible for these funds and then to participate in this planning process. What they’re proposing to do is have Johnson County serve as a fiscal agent for a multi-jurisdictional plan. This plan would involve eight additional communities, which would be University Heights, Hills, Tiffin, Swisher, Shueyville, Solon, Oxford, and Lone Tree. To Wilson’s credit, he has done substantial work with the community of Lone Tree. One of the requirements for this project is actually the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participation, and Lone Tree was NFIP sanctioned. At some point they had determined not to participate in that program anymore. Lone Tree does have to participate in the NFIP in order to participate in this planning process and they are well on their way and will be done with that soon.
Copeland said there are communities in Johnson County that already have plans that were recently created, which would be Coralville, Iowa City, and North Liberty. At this time, they are not proposing an update for those communities. However, the approximately three years it will take them to write this plan, at that point in time, they will ask those communities if they would like to update and become part of the Johnson County Multi-Jurisdictional Plan. The advantage to doing this is that it would give the County one expiration date. If all plans continue separately the County would have approximately 12 individual expiration dates. That’s much more difficult to manage and it’s also much more cost effective to produce one single multi-jurisdictional plan than to produce 12 individual plans. What they are proposing is contractual services just under $26,000 for the nine jurisdictions. That would be entirely grant funded. They would have a local match that is in kind in the amount of $4,590. This would all be funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The local match is volunteer hours from the community.
Stutsman told Copeland that was a great overview and she’s so glad she’s doing this. It’s a lot of work and a lot of details and a lot of expertise to put this all together. Sullivan said this is fantastic and thanked Copeland. He wondered what actions have been taken to reach out to those three communities that already have plans and if there is a role for the Board in that. Copeland said she thinks at this point, because they did just update those plans, when she spoke to the lead agents in those plans, they determined that they were not ready at this time to repeat that process. As the Board is aware, this is a fairly detailed process. The update is a much smaller and less time consuming process than the initial plan. She spoke with Iowa City two weeks ago and she was in North Liberty on February 23, 2010. It’s going to be easier way to wait. They run into another problem with their grant obligations, because Iowa City just approved their plan on February 16, 2010 and North Liberty approved their plan on February 23, 2010. Those grants would actually have to be closed out prior to the County applying, because of the federal funding requirements. So, they’re going to wait until that process is done and once the smaller communities that don’t have plans are caught up to the point of having a draft produced, they will go back and revisit those.
Copeland said they will be contacting the University of Iowa again as well. The University of Iowa did create a plan while Iowa City was involved in their planning process. They had initially expressed some interest in being involved in a multi-jurisdictional plan, but then decided not to pursue that at this time. They would have the option to be come part of one County-wide plan in a few years time. Sullivan told Copeland that when the time comes, if she would like to communicate with the Board again so they can start doing some of that communication as well, he thinks that would be mutually beneficial. Copeland said great. Harney asked Copeland if over that three year period if those that don’t have the plan would be still eligible for funding. Copeland replied no, not without the plan. She said the Board would be. The safe room that they’re currently applying for, buyouts they’ve applied for and any other projects they’d be interested in are possibilities. There are some school districts that are interested in also pursuing safe rooms. She believes they would be able to work with them largely through the incorporated areas they also serve. However, the other communities would not be eligible for the Stafford Act Mitigation Funding until their plan is approved by FEMA and adopted by the community. It could be under three years, but the grant performance period itself will be three years. Stutsman said they will put this agenda for formal action for next week.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said discussing safe rooms reminded him that he thinks the Board knows, but he wanted to let the public know. They’ve probably seen Agriculture Extension Director Gene Mohling at Board meetings talking about the application that the Extension Board was going to file for, which is an application for funding for a safe room at their new building out by the Johnson County Fair Grounds. They have decided to withdraw that application. Johnson said it’s his understanding that they’re ready to go. Their plans for building are progressing faster than paring back on that application, so they have decided to withdraw that application.
Johnson said he wanted to provide the Board with an update on the Sutliff Bridge Project. As the Board knows, in October 2009 when they had the Public Input Meeting, FEMA has obligated $1.7 million toward the restoration of the bridge. According to the engineering report, there was approximately $300,000 that the engineering firm felt the County would be responsible for. They’ve had some further conversations with FEMA and they have updated the project worksheet under their codes and standards provisions to include an additional $440,000 in costs. Basically, under the theory that there are certain provisions, such as the railings and other standards that have to be put into the existing spans, because they’re putting the new span on. Johnson reported that has been submitted. Those funds haven’t been obligated and currently there is a Federal freeze on those obligations and they don’t know how long that will last. FEMA has also indicated that step requires a lot of review by other entities such as the State Historic Preservation Office. Those funds won’t be obligated unless FEMA knows that the Board is interested in going forward with the restoration project. The Board does have the option of deciding to go forward with it and then pending that approval. If that wouldn’t come through, the Board isn’t obligated to continue on with the restoration project.
Johnson said the Internal Committee met this week and felt the next step is to have a meeting with the Board and the Conservation Board and representatives of the Sutliff Bridge Authority to answer questions about if the bridge were restored what the next steps will be or what are the implications as far as maintenance. He thinks he has confirmed this morning that March 3, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. will work for the Conservation Board and he thinks it works for members of the Board. He’s talked with representatives of Sutliff Bridge Authority, too. He said the Board may want some additional information from VJ Engineering regarding whether there are any costs or any elements that aren’t covered by FEMA’s project worksheet that no matter what the County would be responsible for. FEMA has indicated their concern is the scope of the project, so if that element of work is approved as part their project worksheet that will be covered even if costs go up. They fund that element. With that new information, Johnson said they may want VJ Engineering to determine if there is anything that isn’t covered under either project worksheet. Stutsman said this is a report so the Board isn’t going to have any discussion about this today.
Johnson said that on February 26, 2010 there is a joint meeting with members of the Linn County Board of Supervisors and Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors scheduled for 2:00 p.m. in Linn County. On March 1, 2010 the Conference Board is scheduled to meet at 5:30 p.m. On March 2, 2010 the Board’s meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. due to a scheduling conflict on March 4, 2010, so that is a schedule change for next week. The hearing on the budget is scheduled for March 3, 2010 at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Sutliff Bridge Meeting. The Board also has a meeting scheduled for March 3, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. in the boardroom with area staff members of Federal legislators. Sullivan said he didn’t hear Johnson mention the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee. He asked Johnson if that is also scheduled for March 3, 2010. Johnson said it is, as well as a Department Head Review Meeting scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on March 3, 2010.
Harney asked for clarification regarding the building that the grant was applied for at the Johnson County Fair Grounds if it means there will not be a safe room or they’re just not going to ask for the grant to supplement that. Johnson said he’s unsure about that. He knows that as they were working on the application that substantially expanded the safe area that was included in that, so he’s not sure whether there is a safe area included, but it wouldn’t be the large area that was covered by the grant.
Stutsman said the Board received some information about this amendment and as the Board’s policy they do have an opportunity to respond to the planned amendment and didn’t know if there was interest for the Board to either attend the meeting or to write and have comments about the proposal. Neuzil said he did a double-take at what has now been highlighted on here. He asked if it says what he thinks it says. The line says that all real property lying within the incorporated municipal limits of the City of Solon would be under a TIF district. He asked if he was correct in understanding that means that basically everything within the City of Solon would be in a TIF and not shared with the County and the schools.
Johnson said he has some additional information that just came in on February 22, 2010 and he was trying to get this around to the Board before the meeting. He has an email from the City Administrator Cassandra Lippincott as well as Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler. In speaking with Lippincott, Johnson said she indicated that what’s motivating this is Solon has been working on curb and gutter and in the part covered by the urban renewal area and was interested in expanding that into areas that aren’t currently covered by that, as well as some future work on the 5th Street intersection. What Lippincott’s email indicates is that this is expanding the urban renewal area and allowing them to take on projects in that area, but not expanding the TIF district. They’d be using funds from the existing TIF district for municipal projects in that area. Johnson said that’s as far as he understands it.
Rettig said she worked with Johnson on this earlier this week because she’s the liaison to Solon. She thinks the more questions they asked the more confused they became. She did meet with Kistler and he said he’s not clear how they can expand the area without expanding the TIF area. Stutsman added without taking the taxes. Rettig agreed. She said they had actually been reducing the amount of taxes they were obligating to this over the years and it seemed to be fairly responsible. The point is they wanted to do some work in an older section of town that wasn’t in the TIF district. She said the Board doesn’t have enough information to do anything other than to react to the letter that was sent to them. To Rettig, the letter that was sent to the Board is very concerning to her. That is that they would take the entire City of Solon and put it in an urban renewal district and have the ability to TIF all of that.
Stutsman said she thinks there is a difference between an urban renewal district and a TIF district. She thinks that’s where some of the confusion is. Sullivan said he thinks those are the same thing, but he thinks what they’re suggesting is they would change the area and not necessarily the amount that they’re going to use. Harney said Sullivan is right, if they read the email correctly, it says that they’re expanding the area, but they can use the funds from the present TIF area to help enhance the other area of the community that is listed. Stutsman said they have to remember, if a city TIFs a whole area then that means they can’t use those dollars for their General Fund either. It wouldn’t be advantageous for Solon to expand that whole TIF area and not be able to access those tax dollars for themselves.
Neuzil said not unless it was for their entire community. In other words, diverting money that they would have to use for that could then be used by the TIF and that way they can have additional money. His concern is with the language that’s used. This is again an opportunity for another community to expand a TIF rather than having the TIF expire and share the value that has now been obtained by having the TIF with the schools, County, and with their own city. This is just another on a long list of projects, particularly on the housing side, which is very concerning, where the County still has to provide a level of service for those particular areas and the taxation is now burdened on the County rather than shared with everyone.
Sullivan said he thinks people have to understand the origin. He thinks it came after the riots in the late 1960s in urban America where there were parts of Los Angeles and parts of Detroit that there was no investment. They created this so that they could take a place that was blighted, and blighted was the key word, and get some investment there to turn that area around. He said that’s great and he doesn’t think anybody would argue with that. The problem is that what has been allowed under TIF continues to grow in the State of Iowa to where there are basically no limits and cities can do anything they want with any area they want for any purpose they want. It’s that broad. What that has done is the State now has to backfill all the money into those school districts. Stutsman said the State represents her and other Board members. Sullivan agreed. He said they don’t backfill the counties. The counties are just out of luck on that increment and they miss out. He thinks the numbers over the last ten years, are $30 million, which Kistler gave him. Neuzil said that’s pretty close. Sullivan said that Johnson County has not received around $30 million in the last ten years. Stutsman said it’s just Johnson County and not the schools. Sullivan said this taxing body, the Board of Supervisors, has not received $26 million in the last ten years. Neuzil said that number is current as of FY10.
Stutsman said they can tell the Board gets frustrated with this issue and they have repeatedly gone to the Legislature to ask for some modifications of the TIF Law. Not to do away with, but just some modifications and time limits. She said they won’t touch it because they think cities need this to grow. She agrees with Sullivan that the intent is good, but it’s gone beyond what it was originally intended to do and now it is almost becoming a grab for more tax dollars by municipalities and leaving the rest with few options. She said she sees the meeting is scheduled for March 3, 2010. She said they are scheduled to have a meeting on March 2, 2010. She didn’t know if the Board wanted to direct Johnson to do a little more investigation on this and then draft a letter sharing the Board’s concerns, if in fact this does mean those tax dollars will not be available to Johnson County in all of Solon.
Rettig said she met with County Assessor Bill Greazel, who expressed some concerns. When they do things like this, they actually change the valuation or the ability to sell property that’s not in the TIF district. She said Greazel said that without knowing the full scope, it’s kind of hard to react. She noted it says that they have seven days after March 3, 2010 to respond in writing and she thinks in lieu of additional information, they have three sheets of paper that tells the Board what they want to do. In her opinion, what they want to do is scary, and would set a precedent for other communities. She does think the Board can gather more information, but if all it is in an email, that’s not necessarily the scope and has no binding, so she’s curious if there are more documents and they haven’t been able to obtain them. Sullivan said he doesn’t even think this is precedent setting. He thinks they already have this in Shueyville, Tiffin, and maybe even somewhere else. Stutsman said the have it in Coralville. Sullivan said a lot of Coralville.
Harney said he thinks Rettig is correct. The way he reads it Solon just wants to be able to use the current TIF areas to expand into the other areas and utilize those dollars. It’s an email and not necessarily a contractual agreement. Stutsman said she thinks the Board needs to send someone to the meeting rather than send a letter seven days afterwards, because she thinks it has more impact if somebody is meeting with someone face to face and voicing their concerns and saying why they went to that rather than sending a letter. It’s easy to dismiss a letter sometimes, rather than having someone there asking questions.
Harney said he thinks it’s good to attend the meeting, but he thinks a letter is good, because it documents the Board’s stance. Sullivan agreed with Harney. He thinks both are important. Rettig said none of the Board would be able to attend because they’ll be in a meeting. Stutsman said she thinks in the past Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak has gone to some of these meetings. Sullivan said Dvorak won’t be able to go that day. Neuzil asked what day it’s on. Rettig said it’s scheduled for March 3, 2010 and they will be in a Department Head Meeting. Sullivan said the two people they’re suggesting sending to the meeting both have their evaluations that day. Johnson said they are pre-evaluations. He said Dvorak could go. Stutsman said Johnson could go, too. Rettig said she thinks they should send someone to the meeting, if nothing else to learn more about it, and then send a formal response.
County Attorney Janet Lyness said because the Board has to get a response in seven days after that meeting, and she doesn’t think the Board is going to have a meeting, they may want to look at their calendars and see if they want to have a special meeting, too, after they get a report from Johnson at the meeting scheduled for March 3, 2010. This is because the Board won’t have another formal meeting until eight days later on March 11, 2010. Stutsman asked if they would hear back from Johnson on March 2, 2010. Lyness said the meeting is set for March 3, 2010. Stutsman said they have a Board meeting scheduled for the morning of March 2, 2010, instead of March 4, 2010. Lyness said that after March 3, 2010, the Board is not going to have another meeting until March 11, 2010 and they may want to look at their calendars if the Board wants to have another meeting and get some specific things, including objections and concerns, down after the meeting on March 3, 2010, too.
Stutsman asked Johnson if there are any scheduled Board meetings coming up that they could piggy back on. Neuzil said at night. He said the Board is going to be here anyway. Sullivan said they could. Johnson said could be an agenda on the Sutliff Bridge Meeting. Harney suggested meeting right before the Sutliff Bridge Meeting. Stutsman said it there’s going to be a discussion, she hates to run out of time. She suggested doing it after the Sutliff Bridge Meeting. Maybe they’ll talk about the Joint Justice Coordinating Committee Meeting and that’s one meeting the Board can not have this month. She said to see what decisions are made during the Budget Meeting today. She doesn’t think it’s a good use of people’s time to say they haven’t met. She doesn’t know of any committees that have met. Harney said the Board skipped last month’s meeting. Stutsman said they’d have further discussion on that, too. She asked if Johnson is clear where the Board is going with this. Johnson said yes. Lyness asked if the Board scheduled a meeting. Stutsman said they’d attach it after the Joint Meeting with the Conservation Board and Johnson County on the Sutliff Bridge. It will be immediately following that meeting.
Rettig said she had liaison meetings with Mental Health/Disability Services (MH/DS) Director Kris Artley, with Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek, and with Social Services Director Amy Correia. Rettig attended the SEATS Paratransit Advisory Committee Meeting. Rettig said she also had a Decat Board of Directors Meeting, and a Juvenile Justice Meeting. They had a Safety Committee Meeting on February 24, 2010 and they are of the opinion that they need to have more drills. Nobody can remember the last time there was a drill, including fire and tornado drills. Rettig attended a very interesting and thoughtful educational session on the Wetlands Mitigation Credit Bank. Rettig stated the Green Team is scheduled to meet March 1, 2010. That will be an internal committee to help the County with meeting their sustainability and greenhouse gas reductions. Rettig said she wanted to note that there is a legislative forum scheduled for February 27, 2010 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at Coralville City Hall. Rettig also noted that the Iowa City American Legion is having their fundraising breakfast on February 28, 2010, which includes more than pancakes. She said she thinks they’ll feed people well.
Harney attended the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Banquet, the Space Needs Committee, a liaison meeting with SEATS Director Tom Brase, an Iowa City Area Development Meeting, a Sixth Judicial District Department of Corrections Board Director’s Meeting, a meeting with the Farm Bureau regarding the FY11 budget, the Chamber Corridor Day at the Capitol, a liaison meeting with Shramek.
Neuzil stated he had liaison meetings with Rettig and Artley. He said that MH/DS is putting on a "Speak Up or Lose Out" program scheduled to take place on March 4, 2010 from 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. at the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building. This is a program that that the MH/DS Department is putting on through the Linn County and Johnson County Government Affairs Committee. This is a program that is encouraging individuals, agencies, and providers to come in and tell the committee to tell them their story so they can document that story and pass that onto the Iowa legislators. Neuzil attended the Johnson County Empowerment Board Meeting, the Ark of Southeast Iowa Chili Supper, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Luncheon, the E911 Board meeting, the Sutliff Bridge Meeting, and the Farm Bureau Meeting regarding the FY11 Budget. Neuzil stated the EMA Association met on the night of February 24, 2010 to hold their public hearing for the proposed budget for the Emergency Management Association. Neuzil said he’s scheduled to hold a listening post at Hungry Hobo in Iowa City at 11:30 a.m. on February 26, 2010. He’ll continue on with his Senior Center class and this time they’re scheduled to visit the Johnson County Jail at 1:00 p.m. on February 26, 2010. It’s an opportunity for those residents who are part of that course to see firsthand the space limitations of the current Jail facility.
Sullivan said he’s one of nine people in the County who are on the Job Evaluation Team. He stated they’ve completed their training and are ready to receive any appeals that come forward. Sullivan attended the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Ag and Biosciences Committee meeting. Sullivan said he wanted to put in a plug for Bowl for Kids’ Sake this weekend. He has a team going and it’s a great fundraiser for Big Brothers Big Sisters.
Stutsman said she belongs to a group called Council of Ag Research Extension and Technology (CARET). She said she travels to Washington D.C. once per year and works with Land Grant colleges in getting funding for them. She informed the Board she has been asked to do this for a couple of years. She had an opportunity to hear Director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Dr. Richard Beachy, who is the newly appointed head of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which is a new institute under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). She said it was really interesting to hear him talk about what his vision is for the future of many of the issues that the country deals with. Stutsman said Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is very involved with this too, and she said Beachy had wonderful things to say about Vilsak and his leadership at the USDA. Their focus will be on developing research grants for childhood obesity, food security, climate change, and for biofuels and they will be leading the charge in solving those problems, not only on a national level, but on a world level. She said she thinks it’s an exciting time for the country and for institutes like Iowa State University and the research and teaching they do there.
Harney stated he skipped over part of his report. He said there have been reports of vibrations in the second floor area of the Courthouse. Kempf has looked at that and he might have a structural engineer take another look at the building and where it’s at. The front entryway has deteriorated where one of the pieces of glass has fallen out above the front door a week ago. He stated that the floor has settled down about a half inch to an inch in the front area as well. That needs some attention and they’ll be looking at that and the Board will have to decide how much they want to put into that before they decide what they’re going to do for a remodel. There also was an area in between the backdoor of the west side and the stone building behind where the pavement was settling. He said Kempf had a contractor come up and on February 20, 2010 they cut that open, because they couldn’t probe down to see where the bottom of that was. When they opened that up, and jack-hammered the concrete back, the concrete fell and there is about a 22 feet deep hand-dug well that was under the driveway. He said it had obviously been there a long time, because the area had been built up around it and paved over for driveway and parking lot. They’re in the process of filling the well and repaving that particular area. He said the Courthouse issue sticks out and the Board needs to start looking at addressing it. County Attorney Janet Lyness commented that the Board should ask Kempf to see photographs of the well. She said it was quite interesting to see. Harney said it seems odd it would be a well, because it goes down about 22 feet and that’s still not the bottom where Capitol Street is so close. He said they’re not sure what the hole was for sure, but it appears it was a well. It may have even been there before the Courthouse.
Adjourned at 10:42 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary