Thompson: Next on our agenda is business from the Board of Supervisors. Discussion action regarding a processing fee at the Johnson County Jail Facility. We have Duane Lewis and Sheriff Bob Carpenter from the Sheriff’s Department. A processing fee is something that we have been discussing for some time. We mentioned at the cities meeting in the fall that this was on our agenda. In your packet you have a chart that shows what revenue the different entities would have to pay and we would collect if we charge fees for this. Bob do you want to come forward and share in our discussion.

Lehman: These fees would be charged to the arresting or looking municipalities not to the individual. Is that what we were talking about.

Thompson: Each month the Sheriff’s department would calculate the number of intakes that they had from each jurisdiction. Probably send it over here and Mike Sullivan would bill the appropriate City.

Lehman: This would help defray the expense of personnel, equipment, what ever might be needed to process individuals when they are brought to the jail.

Neuzil: Bob, what’s the opinion on the Sheriff’s department on this? Is this really necessary right now?

County Sheriff Bob Carpenter: I’ve stated to the Board before that in the past I’ve discussed this with other Supervisors in the past. The feelings were at that time the Cities that would participate also pay taxes to the County. You’re kind of double taxing them. However, I should also state that under the Code, the Highway Patrol, the State Patrol cannot be charged for any inmates they bring in under Code. So we’re required by law to accept their prisoners without charge. So it’s not quite as all as easy…

Neuzil: Does the same thing go with the University though? I mean, aren’t they also State?

Carpenter: It doesn’t state the University.

Neuzil: So they could be.

Thompson: So this list only includes the revenue that we would get from the jurisdictions we could charge.

Stutsman: But we didn’t include any administrative costs on our end either didn’t we? Maybe that wouldn’t amount to much. Well, there always is an administrative cost. I guess you don’t do anything…

Carpenter: Well, somebody’s going to have to tabulate the figure and keep them straight. Who is paying, who isn’t.

Harney: There have been several issues that go together with it so far, at least as I can see. One if the staff time it’s going to take to do the billings and to track whose in an out and which entity. That’s going to take a lot of time. Secondly, like the Sheriff said, the Highway Patrol by Code cannot be charge for bringing in prisoners. Do we charge out own selves, the Sheriff, for bringing his own prisoners in. Do we bill those small unincorporated communities? I guess by the time you look at all the details into what it would cost us to follow this and track it are we going to gain that much in dollars? I know there was an inference at one time that perhaps we would be encouraging the Cities not to make quite as many arrests. But I’m not sure that would work. I think the jail study group found that most of these people are brought in need to be attended to. There are not a lot of over arrests made by any of the entities as far as we could find.

Carpenter: I guess my opinion on the thing is even though the County is responsible for the funding of the jail, it’s still a countywide problem. I’m not sure by charging these people you’re going to separate the entities of saying well, we do our share already, so why should we have to work towards… This is not going to solve our problem by adding this cost, charging the Cities. It’s not going to be nearly enough money to take care of the overall problems the County has as far as funding. To me, I think, number one, if you’re going to bill them it should be more of a responsible charge. By charging them a booking fee, it’s not going to be anywhere near take care of the costs of housing their prisoners. So I don’t know if that’s the way to handle this or not. Let’s go back and work together to try to figure out how we can solve the overall problem and work together as a County instead of separate entities. Try to solve the problem. Either add on a facility or build a facility later on. You know, it’s just a matter of time before math minds figure out that it’s going to be cheaper. You’ve got to do something because you can’t continue to spend the funds that we’re spending now. I mean, I just don’t think… It’s not even going to be a shot in the arm for what you’re going to gather out of it. Say we charge $25 per person, based on the 2000 booking numbers, we’re talking $115,000. You know, I’m not sure that’s going to be all that big of an amount to help us that much. We’re by far going to bypass that in housing outside of the County this year. I realize it would help, but…

Thompson: That’s what I was thinking. We’re going to spend $413,000 to transport prisoners. A revenue of 115,000 wouldn’t help much.

Carpenter: I understand that, but by charging the Cities is that going to say well we’re doing our part already why should we worry about trying to take care of the overall problem. This isn’t going to solve our problem either.

Stutsman: I guess I could see charging if we were paying for the jail out of the Rural Fund. But we’re not. The jail is paid out of the General Fund, so everybody in the County contributes to that through their tax dollars.

Carpenter: I agree with you Sally on that one.

Stutsman: I really do feel, part of why this was brought up, was to limit the number of people that were coming in. Every time I talk to people about this, this is the arresting people. When they tell me who they are bringing to the jail, I feel those people need to belong in jail. I never get the sense that they are indiscriminately arresting everybody that is staggering down the street. These people are either a harm to themselves or to somebody else. The reason that they’re being put in jail. I don’t think this will accomplish what a lot of people think it would, which is to lower the number of people going into jail.

Neuzil: I have a problem with obviously the timing right now. To be able to do this, this late in the game with budgets for the other communities and to be able to put it in administration. I don’t want this idea to be off the table either. I think that as we study alternatives, we study all the different options, I want this to be a part of it. Because I do think it will have an impact on the number of people being arrested. I think there are too many people being arrested right now and put in our jail.

Carpenter: This is where, Terrence, you and I will probably disagree, because if you look at the figures and the percentages… I know Iowa City arrests more people then any other agency. They should. Number one percentage of officers on the street compared to citizens in town. They’ve got more then any other agency, I believe. They have the most people living in their area. They are going to represent 50% or better of the population brought into our jail. That’s not out of line. Those are some figures that I think were kind of misleading in the past. I don’t see a large number of people being brought to our facility that are actually housed. I’m not saying there are people who are processed on out the door when they arrive because there is quite a few of those that we process out to, either through a sign out or a promise to appear the next morning. Or if we find somebody capable and willing to take responsibility of the individuals, we’ll sign them right on out. But I don’t see that many people being arrested by us or any other agency that are out of line. Unless you start changing some laws. Terrence and I think the problem there is, and I don’t foresee that happening.

Neuzil: I just know the stories that I’ve talked to people and I think…

Carpenter: I’ve heard a lot of stories too, but there’s always two sides to that story.

Neuzil: Absolutely Bob, I’m not trying to question your abilities by any means.

Carpenter: You know, I’ve had the mom and dad say my son or daughter wasn’t doing anything. But something happened in order to draw attention to that person to start with.

Neuzil: Again it comes to the question of does that person go to jail. I just think this is something that still needs to be on the table. I know right now we don’t have enough time to put this in place, to give other communities the time to budget for this now, is not fair to those communities. But I still think it need to be on the table as we talk about…

Carpenter: Realistically this fee should be passed onto the individual being arrested.

Neuzil: Absolutely, we’re not saying…

Harney: The problem is a collection problem. We have the same thing with corrections when they go through their programs out there. They can’t get those bills paid to them. They can’t collect those for obvious reasons. Some people can’t, some people just won’t They really have a back log of money owed them, which in turn someone pays. It comes out of the tax…

Carpenter: It’s really hard to penalize an agency for doing their job, the way I look at it. That’s kind of what you’re doing. Whether it’s the agency or the City that they work for. When they make an arrest, you’re saying hey you know, you’re going to have to pay for this. When in fact I agree that it should go back to the person being arrested. That’s who should be paying the bill.

Neuzil: We’re not stopping the community from going out and recouping some of that money either. In other words, if we charge Iowa City or if we charge Coralville, or if we charge University or North Liberty, we’re not stopping that community from trying to get that fee back.

Harney: Where I disagree is… I can understand the reason for a processing fee if it’s a cost to the Sheriff and what it’s costing him to bring them people in. But on the other hand if we’re just doing it to tell each particular community that we don’t want you making as many arrest, then we’re trying to make that decision for them as to who they should arrest and who they shouldn’t arrest. That’s already set forth by the laws. If we need to change the laws, then fine. Get the legislatures to try to change the laws, but I don’t think we need to try to control their arrests by a processing fee.

Neuzil: We’ve got to send the message to somebody that we have this overcrowded jail and we don’t have the money to take care of them.

Stutsman: I think they’ve gotten the message. That’s all we’ve talked about. I don’t get the sense that they’re just ignoring and continuing to…

Neuzil: I’m not suggesting that they’re ignoring, but I certainly don’t believe that… We’ve got a real budget problem here. A real big one. I just think this needs to be a part of the discussion as we go through our lists of alternatives.

Carpenter: I don’t have a problem with you looking at it periodically either. Like I said, I believe I told the Board earlier, I’ll do whatever you want me to do. I just am not a firm supporter of it.

Lehman: If we looked at it as being some type of user fee to supplement the cost of operating the jail, the debates on who are we going to try to collect it from. Well I think it’s consensus that the individuals that are being brought to jail, the majority of, you’re not going to be able to collect it. They don’t have the resources and we don’t have the resources to track them. It’s easier to throw it back on the entity that arrested them.

Neuzil: Right.

Stutsman: But you’re still raising taxes. How are the Cities and the communities going to… It’s just robbing Peter to pay Paul in my opinion. The only way they’re going to cover those fees is to raise taxes, so we raise them or they raise them.

Neuzil: That’s right.

Thompson: But the amount of tax that we can raise is limited.

Neuzil: I’d like to see them raise them over us raise them.

Thompson: We’re facing a difficult budget year with the TIF, the revenue that we lost, and the decrease in State revenues. The interest rates falling, so we loose interest. The Department’s revenue projections are lower then last year. We have a tough budget year and we are limited in the ways that we can raise money. So personally I feel that just from a practical standpoint anything that we can do to offset the additional cost of housing these prisoners elsewhere is something we should do. I feel badly that we have to do that to our neighbors, but…

Neuzil: One of the reasons I brought up to Bob, the very first thing, I said what do you feel? I don’t see this happening unless you’re behind this, because you’re the one that is going to have to work with the person and all those kinds of deals. I think we need the Sheriff on board if we’re going to pursue this.

Carpenter: Like I said, I’ll do whatever the Board wants me to do and not say anything more about it. I mean, you asked me my opinion and I’ll give it, but I’ll do what the Board wants me to do. I don’t have to provide the funding for the jail, you do.

Neuzil: OK. Yes, but you still have to put up with it.

Carpenter: I’m going back and I still have the philosophy that… I thought at one time that was a hot idea. Over the years I’ve thought about it and I don’t think it’s so hot.

Thompson: You’re right. It’s certainly won’t solve our jail problem. The overcrowding in the jail is a bigger problem then this. But to demonstrate to the public that we’re serious about this, we need to do everything we can to solve our problem. This is a tiny little thing that we can do.

Harney: Do you have any idea what kind of time it would take to track something like this. Would it be another full time person, would you have the staff to do that?

Carpenter: I think we’ve talked that Duane did some work on it. I think he figured in order to cover our expenses and stuff it’s going to take $20 a booking. So if you look down at that $20, I think that… Duane might to address that. Isn’t that right.

Louis: That’s officers time and the cost of equipment.

Lehman: That’s $92,000. That would be a trade off. It would take in $92,000.

Thompson: That would cover the cost to do the intake that we now pay for. The cost to do the billing would be minimal, because they would use their database to print it out and Mike would send out a letter to each entity every quarter. Mike, you looked at that a little, did you think it was going to be very costly for us?

Sullivan: Not from our standpoint on our end. I’m not sure exactly how many hours you’d have to put in there, but if you feel $20 would cover it. It would indicate to me by the numbers that it wouldn’t be a lot of time. Obviously if you’re getting into the $35 range and up, you’re looking at a considerable amount of time that somebody’s devoting to it. If you’re looking at it from that perspective, just to cover the cost.

Thompson: That would cover the cost of the person doing the intake. The Sheriff’s time to take the person into the jail is what the $20 would cover. The cost to do the billing would be that the computer person down there would have to do a computer run each month, which I think they probably do anyway. They know where these people come from it’s in their database.

Sullivan: It’s just the statistics anyway. That’s all I would need to put it together as far as a spreadsheet for myself. Just that information.

Lehman: We’re looking at a $20 per person. That generates $92,000. My question I think you answered, what we would retain over our additional expenses. You’re saying that would be pretty minimal. So it’s supplemental.

Thompson: So the $92,000 would offset the cost to the County to have the staff down there and the equipment to take those prisoners in. The finger printing and paper work.

Lehman: It’s a reimbursement for something that we’re already doing.

Stutsman: Well according to the Code, the jail is the County’s responsibility. I think this goes along with that responsibility. Part of that is processing and booking prisoners. If there is cost involved with that, then I think it’s the County’s responsibility to pay those costs. I’m not supportive of charging.

Lehman: I look at it the other way that the jail is taxed out of the General Fund. Because of the population you’re going to get into assessments and dollars in each of these communities, because the higher populations are having higher tax values, so they are paying proportionate into the General Fund to pay for this. Did I loose you?

Stutsman: Yes. Could you tell?

Lehman: What I’m saying, is each of these communities is probably paying a proportionate share because of their population. Not that the population always go to dollars assessment, tax assessments and stuff.

Harney: That’s true because the taxation goes to the operation of the jail and for the staff, the Sheriff’s staff, all of them. It’s not under the Rural Fund at all. Where perhaps then we would have to try to break it down, what rural deputies are going to be charged under the rural fund and which ones are going to be under the general fund.

Thompson: Right now I’m not hearing a consensus.

Neuzil: I don’t think… All I’m suggesting is I don’t want it off the table, but I do believe this is too late in the budget season, to tell Iowa City, by the way you’re going to be owing $85,000 you need to get out of you’re budget right now. I don’t think that’s very fair to those communities. Again I still think it needs to be apart of our discussion when it comes to alternatives or all the budget problems that we’re going to face this year, it’s going to be twice as bad next year.

Stutsman: I think we, part of having this on was so we could start giving heads up to the entities that we’re seriously considering this. Although I agree too, it’s to late this year to really put it in place. If there was a consensus to move on then we could start… I want to hear back from these other communities too, as I’m sure we will hear about what their feelings are about this.

Thompson: I’m not hearing consensus to put this on for a vote next week.

Lehman: Correct.

Thompson: Any further discussion?

Stutsman: I agree with Terrence, this is something we want to review again on a periodic basis, I have no problem with that.

Lehman: Along with our other jail alternatives.

Neuzil: Yes, it needs to be on the list.

Lehman: Thank you Bob.

Neuzil: Thanks Bob. Thank you Duane.

Thompson: The next item on our agenda is discussion action needed regarding the City of Iowa City annexation request from the Waverly Group Incorporated to annex 4.01-acres of property located South of Herbert Hoover Highway. This property contains the Iowa City Care Center. City staff Karin Franklin mentioned this to us that it would be coming when she met with us last summer. We have R.J. Moore and John Yapp here.

Moore: Good morning.

Yapp: Good morning. I’m here the Senior Planner for Iowa City asked me to cover this on behalf of Iowa City, since he knew I would be here anyway.

Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: As it has been the Board’s policy for the last 3 years plus, you’ve asked our staff to review annexation requests that we receive. We have reviewed this request. We’ve done that looking at it as being in compliance with our Land Use Plan. Any documents created on behalf of the plan. In this case it would be the fringe area agreement that we have with the City of Iowa City. We have looked at this, it is in a growth area and area B in our Fringe Area Agreement, it’s contiguous with recent annexations of the Plum Grove Acres, the City has done in the past. We’ve checked with the County Engineer. Mike Gardener says he’s OK with this annexation. We looked at the Code in particular to make sure it wasn’t creating any islands out in County land. It doesn’t do that. There is one big advantage we’re well aware of, that the care facility has had problems with the wastewater lagoon over the years. That annexation would help resolve that issue for the care facility.

Neuzil: Would the whole care facility be in Iowa City now.

Moore: Yes. That’s our understanding anyway.

Harney: This does not include any of the houses that are South of the care center, behind the care center.

Yap: No, it does not.

Moore: On behalf of the Board, I think it was yesterday or the day before, as you’ve directed us before, we kind of helped the Board… I drafted out a letter on behalf of the Board that you would send to the City Development Board and a copy to the City of Iowa City. I believe Mike Sullivan has shared that with you. However you’d like to deal with that letter. We don’t have any problems and we didn’t see the Board of Supervisors having any problems with that.

Stutsman: When’s the public hearing on this.

Moore: The 22nd for the City of Iowa City.

Stutsman: So how are we going to get this letter sent. This is an informal?

Moore: We can be lagging behind them a little bit. We can put it on you’re formal agenda for next Thursday. If you so agree with the letter, then you can authorize Chairperson Carol to sign it. Then we could send it to the City Development Board and a copy to the City.

Thompson: The meeting next week is the City’s meeting.

Stutsman: The City’s public hearing. All right.

Neuzil: On the map, it obviously looks like an island. I was trying to figure out where that comes up to, because I know Scott Boulevard, you’ve got the corner there. That’s not in Iowa City yet, is it?

Moore: What you’re not seeing is Plum Acres. Where the City line is right now. Remember this past year they… Plum Acres is in between there and it’s already annexed.

Neuzil: So Plum Acres has now moved.

Moore: Move the line over to the care facility.

Thompson: Hummingbird Lane.

Neuzil: So that dotted line kind of moves over a little bit move.

Moore: Yes, the mapping is just a little behind.

Neuzil: Great.

Yapp: The only thing I have to add is it’s my understanding the main reason the care center desires to annex into the City is for the sewer service. The City does have a sewer extension scheduled for FY03 to serve the care center.

Neuzil: That would be great because they’ve had problems with the lagoon.

Yapp: So it will be another couple of years, but it is in the budget currently.

Stutsman: Well, I would suggest we put this on for next week. Thank you for a good letter and good report.

Moore: You bet. If you need any, if Mike needs any help with the letter we drafted or whatever, let us know. We’d be glad to help.

Thompson: Thank you. The next item for discussion is the appointment of a real estate team. When the Board met last week with the Space Needs Committee, regarding the budget, there was some discussion of the need for us to officially appoint people to negotiate for us if we would find property that we wanted to purchase.

Lehman: We had discussion with our Space Needs Committee and then we talked about things as a Board. I think we were talking about we need some lead people to go there to make some contacts, to feel individuals out, to get a feel for the market a little bit. We had some discussion of Pat White, Mike Sullivan, Tom Kriz and Jeff Horne’s name was also mentioned. At least, possibly one Board member should sit in. I don’t know how big of a team you wanted get here. A football team or a basketball team?

Stutsman: Bob Saunders in as a referee.

Neuzil: We could certainly do that.

Thompson: I think it would be good to include Pat Harney as well as Pat White.

Neuzil: Pat, are you OK with that.

Harney: I don’t have a problem with it. No. If we have to many, that’s fine. I don’t mind sitting back either.

Neuzil: Great.

Lehman: We had talked about visiting with people, it wasn’t like they had to send everybody out. Maybe that could be like a subcommittee type of thing. They could get together and make recommendations.

Stutsman: That’s my concern. I expressed this last week. I just want to keep this moving and I worry when you get to many people, with everybody’s busy schedule, then one person can’t make it and then we have to put it off for another week. So I think if it’s understood that you know there is certainly all these members of the team, but they don’t always have to be present at every meeting or every discussion. Just so that it always stays timely. Then I think that would be my goal.

Neuzil: I agree.

Thompson: Is the Board comfortable with that group. 5 people.

Stutsman: Who was that again?

Thompson: Pat White, Mike Sullivan, Jeff Horne, Tom Kriz, and Pat Harney. Is this something that we put on next week for a vote or do we just reach consensus today?

Lyness: If they’re going to negotiate for you I think should probably vote on it next week.

Stutsman: I guess I would make a suggestion for the agenda. I was real confused about what the real estate team was. I was wondering if we could say Real Estate Team for County Land Acquisition. That would be a little bit more clear. Was anybody else confused or was that just me?

Lehman: I think we knew what it meant, but the description…

Thompson: It would be confusing for the public I think.

Stutsman: I didn’t know if Planning & Zoning was having a team that they were going to bring in.

Sullivan: I’ll see that it’s changed.

Neuzil: I wonder who they’re playing against?

Thompson: Any further discussion. We’ll move onto discussion action needed regarding a paratransit advisory committee by-laws. We have them in our packet.

SEATS Director Lisa Dewey: When the Committee was first developed there were some very general by-laws developed. I think that was because it was a new committee. There have been some things that have come to pass over the last couple of years. In discussion with a couple of Board members and a couple of committee members the request was made to make this a little more clear and concise. So the by-laws that you have been put together utilizing by-laws from other committees with the Board and developed from those general pieces. A couple of the things with the by-laws here, the format is a little different. It makes it a little more formal, it clarifies duties and committees and who is responsible for what. It also indicates the appointed riders that are appointed to the Committee. Before it just said 4 riders and in this by-laws its delineating that there is one from the northern rural area, one from the southern rural area, one from Iowa City and one from Coralville. This would give an overall ability for the community of Johnson County to be the representative, rather than having all of them from Iowa City and Coralville which is where the majority of them come from at this time. The length of term stays the same. It does because there has been quite a bit of discussion to have this is an advisory committee. It is to provide advisement to the Board of Supervisors. But the discussion had taken place to have it go through the director to the Board of Supervisors. That has been put in there. The other thing is it delineates that there are 3 officers; the chair, vice chair and a secretary. Those are elected positions and it also indicates that ex-officio members will be appointed by the Supervisors which was pretty clear and that these are non-voting members. It appoints the director of SEATS as a non-voting ex officio member to this committee. Then it gives the duties of the officers. It also talks about the minutes of the meeting and that they would be approved and then sent to the Board. It talks about the meetings but again they would be at least 4 times a year, quarterly. Than as needed. It talks about how to fill vacancies, amendments to the by-laws, the by-laws provide the County with ultimate control, the Board of Supervisors and the County ultimate control however amendments to the by-laws could be done through the Committee in the future. So rather than having to have the Board do these amendments themselves the Committee could vote for amendments and bring that to the Board for approval, or could approve the amendments to the by-laws. The only thing is that it should indicate that they can not change Article 2. That isn’t delineated in here and I think that’s something we might want to do, delineate that they cannot change article 2 because that is where it indicates that a county Board of Supervisors has ultimate power, that the Committee cannot do or make any decisions on behalf of the County. Then it talks about the ratification that once these are adopted the Committee is able to make changes to all of the other articles through the process.

Thompson: I can’t tell from the document you gave us what are the changes and what are the original language. This was done by your office?

Dewey: Actually I worked with mike Sullivan and with the MH/DD by-laws and a couple of the other by-laws that you have in your books and with Mike O’Donnell who is the Chairperson who had come and asked that we clarify certain things.

Thompson: Has it been reviewed by the Committee yet?

Dewey: No. My understanding was the original by-laws were developed by the Board. So these are amending those by-laws my understanding was to let the Board do that and then after that the Committee would then have through the by-laws have the ability to change those through the Committee.

Stutsman: I think it’s a matter of process. These should come from the Advisory Committee. I’m going to suggest that although I think amendments can be done through the Advisory Committee I think the final approval should be with the Board of Supervisors. I would have some concerns like if they wanted to change the membership of the Committee and have all of the members be from Iowa City. There's just some certain things that I think the Board needs to have the final say on.

Lehman: Changes to the by-laws may be suggested by a majority…

Stutsman: Or maybe recommended and approved then forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

Dewey: We have our next Advisory Committee Meeting on the 30th of January so we could present those… The 2 Board members could present that at that meeting on the 3rd.

Stutsman: OK.

Neuzil: I would just like to see it go through the Committee process and then it will come back to us. That way we all have had a chance to look at it.

Stutsman: The Committee has had a chance to see it or make recommendations or changes to that.

Lehman: So that they know what they’re operating under. They may say I don’t like this and I would just as soon be off of the committee. Or maybe stronger reinforcement for them.

Thompson: Lisa, you will make the changes we’ve suggested today and then take it to the committee. The next time we see the document it will be in a recommendation.

Dewey: Right.

Thompson: OK. Thank you.

(Continued in Part 3)