MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 24, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: Conservation Board Closed on Tomash Property
Report (Stutsman): Attended Iowa State Association of Counties Conference
Work Session: Monthly Report/Update on Strategic Planning Economic Development
Assistant Planning And Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: Open Meetings Law And Public Information
Chairperson Thompson called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:19 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
Thompson: The first item on the agenda is Business from the County Engineer, Mike Gardner. This is Discussion/Action needed regarding the request received to place a stop sign at Old Prairie du Chien Road at its intersection with Prairie du Chien Road Northeast.
County Engineer Mike Gardner: Morning.
Lehman: Morning, Mike.
Neuzil: Hi.
Gardner: As you all know, a couple years ago, we reconstructed Prairie du Chien Road, and realigned the curves near the south end of the project. In doing that, there remained a portion of the old roadway, and we entered into an agreement with the people that have the subdivision out there that we were going to keep the road going north, and it was going to become their responsibility to maintain it, do all the maintenance on it, but it was going to remain a County road. I received a phone call, and it just happened to be an employee of the Sheriff’s Department that called me, and questioned why there wasn’t a stop sign at that intersection; she’d had a near-miss there. I investigated it, and found that, indeed, it was probably warranted at that location. We have sent them a notice that they are to install a stop sign at that location. I talked to the County Attorney’s Office, and Andy recommended that since this is still a public road, that the Board take the necessary action, as far as passing a resolution to put a stop sign up to make it enforceable. So, that’s how we get to being in here this morning. it will be on the agenda next week so you can take formal action, and I’ll have the resolution here for that, at that time.
Stutsman: Looks like a good idea.
Lehman: The residents from Prairie View Estates aren’t using that access at this time, yet, are they? This is for the future?
Gardner: They are using it. The road is completed, and so they are coming out that way. I can’t imagine that there’s a lot of traffic on it, but that is that much more reason to put it up, because people aren’t expecting too much traffic coming out of there.
Lehman: I haven’t been out, back in that area, but the map said proposed extension, so I didn’t know if it was actually done yet.
Gardner: Yes, it’s been completed at this point. This was just the best drawing I could find.
Lehman: OK.
Stutsman: This drawing is great.
Gardner: This was something that we had for the agreement, actually.
Stutsman: Really? Because it was confusing to me, what exactly we’re talking about, and now it’s well laid-out.
Gardner: Yes, it worked out well for this.
Thompson: Would there be consensus to put this on our agenda for next week?
Stutsman: Yes.
Thompson: And Mike, we’ll move on to Discussion/action regarding the informal right-of-way meeting held on January 22nd, 2002, for the proposed bridge replacement approach grading project, BROS-C052(58)--8J-52, located on Eagle Avenue northwest in Section 10-79-8. We need to set the date for a public hearing, to authorize the Secondary Roads Department to proceed with the necessary right-of-way acquisition and construction.
Gardner: I’m just going to turn this over to Rob. This is his project; it’s the bridge out on Eagle Avenue that we’ve been before you with a couple of items on it before. I’m just going to turn it over, and let him explain what’s going on.
Assistant County Engineer Rob Winstead: Thanks, Mike. Good morning. We had the meeting this past Tuesday. There’s 6 property owners that own property adjacent to this project, and 2 of them came out. I was glad that the 2 that did come out were the 2 property owners most impacted by the project. We went over what the project involves. We told them that to do the project, we would need to purchase additional right-of-way, and kind of took them through that, how it would affect their properties, and then opened it up for discussion and questions. The one property owner owns the land to the northeast of the bridge, and it’s a nursery out there; it’s a tree nursery. He was in favor of the project, was agreeable to working with us on making the project happen. We would need to move his entrance, and we talked about that. He was favorable to relocating that entrance in a spot that made sense with where the new bridge was going to be, and the grading work that needed to go on. The other property owner was the owner of the southwest quadrant, and it’s a timber/pastureland situation there, and he was agreeable to the project also. He had one concern, about a tree, that we’re going to work with him on. It’s a large tree that’s at the edges of the proposed grading limits, and we’re going to meet with him on that tree, and see if we can work around it. But, it was a good meeting. The property owners that did attend were in favor of the project. We’ve contacted the other property owners in the past, just letting them know what the project’s about, told them that we would be out doing some survey work, if they saw some folks looking around for property corners, and whatnot. I think everyone out there is aware of the project. Where we’re at now is, we’re getting towards developing the final plans for DOT approval. We’re at the point where we’re ready to move forward with the acquisitions, and, like I said, we had this meeting, and our next step is to come to you next week on your formal agenda, and set a date and time for a public hearing on the project. I would anticipate requesting that that public hearing be held on, probably, February 14th. So, the next step is simply setting that date and time.
Stutsman: What time do you want to set the public hearing? After we do our zoning and platting? How have we done that in the past?
Gardner: This is new; this is the first time we’ve done this. With changes in some of the right-of-way acquisition laws, this is our first go through with it. I don’t anticipate it being a big issue on this project.
Neuzil: We could set it before, if it’s not going to be…
Stutsman: Yes, maybe at 5:15?
Neuzil: You mean 5:45? It starts at 5:30.
Stutsman: Yes. OK, I’m sorry. I was thinking we start the zonings at 5:30, but…
Neuzil: The zoning would be at 6:00. You can work that with Mike.
Gardner: OK.
Harney: Is this a concrete bridge, or it is an erected bridge, a full-scale bridge?
Gardner: This is a concrete slab bridge.
Harney: OK.
Stutsman: And the public hearing will be an opportunity for anybody to come in an express their concerns, or…?
Winstead: Right.
Stutsman: This doesn’t have to do with the claims, that people have until 5:00 that night, or the next day, to file claims? This isn’t for our land acquisition, this is just a public hearing on the project per se.
Gardner: Right.
Winstead: Right. And then, after that public hearing, we would be looking to the Board to pass a motion or a resolution to authorize us to proceed with the acquisition stage of the project.
Stutsman: OK.
Lehman: So, you’ll need to coordinate with Mike on publishing notice of the public hearings, since this is something new.
Winstead: Right.
Gardner: Yes, and we’ve actually been in contact with the Auditor’s Office, to make sure that we can get the timing down, and everything, so we can meet all the necessary deadlines. We’ve done some preliminary work on it.
Stutsman: To clarify what I was talking about, it was road vacations that I’m talking about, wasn’t it?
Gardner: Right. Yes.
Stutsman: I was confused.
Thompson: So, I think we’ll be seeing you next week. We put you on our agenda for then. Any other business from the County Engineer?
Gardner: I don’t believe so.
Thompson: Thanks.
Gardner: Thank you.
Winstead: Thank you.
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY JANET LYNESS: CONSERVATION BOARD CLOSED ON TOMASH PROPERTY
Thompson: Business from the County Attorney?
Lyness: I will just tell you, the Conservation Board had their closing on the property, the Tomash property. That took a long time because of some problems with the title, getting it transferred to the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, but now, the Conservation Board has actually purchased it, and the closing has occurred for that. So, you’ll have on your agenda, probably next week, to discuss what to do with that house. So, I just thought I’d update you on that.
Thompson: Thank you.
Lyness: That’s all I have.
DISCUSSION: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Thompson: We move to Business from the Board of Supervisors, Discussion/action needed regarding appointment to the Compensation Commission.
Lehman: I think we have a vacancy there, due to the death of Richard Corcoran.
Sullivan: Yes. We have one applicant, Jerry Musser.
Stutsman: I don’t know if Jerry’s got enough experience.
Lehman: Did he send a resume, or not?
Stutsman: Jerry’s the former County Assessor, and certainly does have a lot of experience in working with property, and knowing values and things.
Thompson: And he would represent owners of city or town property on the Compensation Commission.
Stutsman: Well, I would suggest that we appoint Jerry to the Compensation Commission.
Thompson: So, we’ll put that on for next week.
Stutsman: I’m glad he applied. Whoever asked him, I think that’s good.
REPORT (STUTSMAN): ATTENDED IOWA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES CONFERENCE
Thompson: Then we move on to Reports and Inquiries. Let’s start with Sally. Is that all right?
Stutsman: Oh. Yes, that’s fine.
Thompson: Can you believe it’s not even 9:30, and we’re to reports?
Stutsman: No kidding. That’s why I just wasn’t thinking that we were going to have this, this quickly. Well, I have a pretty lengthy report. Pat and I went to ISAC, and so, Pat, I’m going to report on ISAC, and you have things to add, I would like us to do just kind of a dual report, because it was a very, very good meeting. I spent 2 days there. I spent Tuesday, which was the Supervisors’ affiliate meeting for Iowa State Association of Counties, and then I and Jeff Horne and Mike Sullivan stayed Wednesday to attend the ISAC University, or continuing education. First thing is that I did have a County Case Management Service Board meeting Tuesday morning, early, and we talked about issues concerning case management. One issue that came up that is a concern for case management is a letter that targeted case management providers received from Magellan, who has the merit contract for mental health services in the State. They, as outlined in the contract, have authority to do reviews, utilization management reviews. The reviews came back just great. They review files, and 95% of the files comply. There was 5% of the files that didn’t comply, and that had to do with a contact between case managers and psychiatrists. It wasn’t from lack of effort, but psychiatrists are very busy people; they didn’t always return phone calls, so that was not documented. So, Magellan has really cabbaged on to this, and are starting to talk about not approving case management services for the chronically mentally ill to be paid under merit, which would mean the counties would have to absorb all those costs. Deb Westfall who is head of case management for ISAC, who we contract for technical services with, is on top of this, and is going to draft a letter to send to Department of Human Services and to Magellan, outlining concerns. She feels that we are certainly doing within what is outlined for case management, and those services should be allowed, that there seems to be a confusion with Magellan in thinking that targeted case management is providing clinical services, but it’s not, it provides assessment and coordination services. So, this could have an impact on counties, so I think it’s real important that we stay on top of this, and certainly follow through and make sure that the legislation and the Department of Human Services understands our concerns, because it would have a financial impact. The other meetings during the day, from Iowa State Association of Counties, both Pat and I agreed it was a really good meeting this time, a lot of good information shared. It moved along quickly, and had a lot of important things. The first meeting was from the State Ombudsman, Robert Anderson, who talked about the Open Meetings Law. Whenever we attend a session with the Open Meetings Law, I always feel so good at how our County Attorney does such an outstanding job of educating the Board, and keeping up on track with the Open Meetings Law, because so much of the information he shared, we could almost say, been there, done that, not a problem in Johnson County. So, I think it’s a real kudos to Pat White and his work with the Board and other elected officials in the County, to make sure that we just don’t have a whole lot of problems with the Open Meetings Law. But, if there are any complaints about State Government, they do go to the Ombudsman, and so he just kind of went over some of the issues, or some of the complaints he had received. The Recorders spent some time talking to the Boards of Supervisors about real estate modernization and the issue that has been submitted by the County Attorney’s Association, where they would turn over all the titles to the Secretary of State Office. So, they wouldn’t be handled at the local level; they’d be handled at the State level. They’re very concerned about this; I think a number of people are concerned about this, and so they just were sharing their concerns, and asking for the Supervisors’ support in trying to get this change. They’re doing a lot of lobbying effort, and sharing their concerns. It seems like so much of the meeting had to do with county government and the importance of county government, local government, keeping government closest to the people, and the resistance to consolidation, to absorbing so many of these services at the State level. The idea is that we do a good job at the local level, and that some of these services need to stay at the local level, and it’s just inappropriate, especially, like, for titles and deeds to be handled at the State level. What will happen, in so many cases, they will take all the fees. We still will have some responsibility at the local level, but certainly won’t recognize those fees for doing that. And, just like Kim’s report said, the County does take in a lot of money for processing these fees. They do a good job, there’s quick turnaround, there’s certainly not any complaints from real-estate or mortgage individuals about the processing at the local level. Anyway, stay tuned for that, see where that goes. Had a discussion about the Driver’s License proposal. Currently, there are 17 permanent Driver’s Licenses across the state. Johnson County is one of those, and that means that there’s a presence every day, in people being able to get their driver’s license. I guess Clay County is going to be added to that list, but the Department of Transportation, in budget cutbacks, are no longer going to have traveling teams go to some other counties. I didn’t get all the numbers on this, Pat; I don’t know if you got the numbers. Anyway, they’re not going to have these traveling teams go, so there is some kind of subtle pressure for these counties that are no longer going to have these traveling teams to have the driver’s license being taken over by the county offices. So, they’re going to give the counties the option to do that. And what an option; you either don’t have any presence in your county for driver’s license, or you have it done in the Treasurer’s Office. So, obviously, those smaller counties are going to have it done in the Treasurer’s Office. A lot of them want it. They don’t have a problem with that. Here in Johnson County we don’t particularly want it because it would just be added responsibility and it’s something that we aren’t really equipped space wise to take over. So, it’s good that there is still the option not to have to take it if we don’t want it. But, I think eventually all of the Treasurer’s Office will be taking over that responsibility of driver’s license. But, this is another step in that direction of having more counties assume that in their Treasurer’s Office. Let’s see, there was also a concern expressed by the County Engineers about changes in the Road Use Tax. Here again, this really impacts rural counties, because the idea is to have the proportion of the road tax funds go more to the urban area or where there is more traffic than have it dispersed according to the current formula, which really does favor rural counties. So, there will be a resolution that will be drafted by the County Engineer’s affiliate and they will disseminate that to the local boards of supervisors. If we want to pass that resolution they certainly would encourage us to do so. So, you kind of get the gist of the meeting. It was a lot of concerns by the small rural counties and what is happening with the budget cut backs and so much of the talk about consolidation of services. We had a report from the Mental Health Restructuring Task Force. At the fall school, the county boards of supervisors and their affiliate group voted to allocate $250 from each county to support hiring a consultant to come into the state to look at this county mental health restructuring plan. So, now they are to the point where they are going to hire this consultant. It will be Steven Day from Boston. He runs a group called the Technical Assistance Collaboration. He has a lot of experience with mental health issues. What they want to do is, they want him to come to the state of Iowa, do an overview of our mental health system and make some recommendations to the legislature and the Department of Human Services about some changes. The Supervisors certainly support going this way. But I just want to tell you that ISAC will be sending out a bill for $250 for us to participate in hiring this consultant. They also want to do a letter of understanding between DHS and the State that they would accept the study as valid and certainly consider it in their deliberations about changes with the mental health system. Then we had a report from the lobbyist, as far as the session coming up. Mike Witson, who is the lobbyist for supervisors, commented that it is going to be a very fast moving session. It sounded like they are really going to move on issues. There is an amendment to the property tax limitation. Again, it is an amendment to 514. I haven’t seen the amendment but Dick Myers spoke to the group and he has seen the amendment and he said in its current form it will not pass. There needs to be some changes to what they’re proposing. So, it sounds like there is going to be some work on it, but boy, this is on a fast track. I think they had an emergency meeting Thursday morning to consider this legislation. So, I think it’s something that we need to follow. There is an overview of the amendment in the legislative newsletter that ISAC puts out. So, I think we probably should all take a look at that so that we can be aware of what is in there. One of the things that may impact us that is being considered in there is that they are going to take GIS services out of the essential county services. I think that is something that we might want to consider putting in there. So, that would have an impact. One of the other things that is a change is that, when somebody contests the County budget, the ownership of justifying new services falls on the Board of Supervisors instead of the people that have brought the petition forth for questions on the budget. I think that was the main issues that were talked about in that change. Lets’ see, the other thing they talked about is that there probably would be a push to expand to the rest of the counties the drivers license. I talked about that earlier. Bob McQueen talked. He is on the ISAC staff. He really got off on the public health infrastructure and his concerns with that and how they have talked about this for a number of years, but legislature just doesn’t seem to deal with putting more food inspectors out in the State. I’ve never seen Bob quite so animated about his issue. But, he really feels strongly that it is just going to be a matter of time that we are going to have a major food issue in the state of Iowa and that we need to recognize that and increase fees and also put more food inspectors in the State before we have some real issues. He feels that there will be a livestock bill this year, but there probably won’t be a whole lot in it. That there probably will not be any local siding. They probably will say that you can’t build a livestock confinement facilitate in a flood plain, which is, I can’t believe that that needs to be considered. But, that is what they are probably going to do and that there probably will be some changes in the distance requirements. This livestock issue doesn’t really affect us all that much in Johnson County, but it certainly does have an impact on a lot of the other rural counties, so they are always very interested in that. We had a speaker who spoke on the Fair Labor Standards Act. I am sure Lora Shramek in our Human Resource Department knows a lot of these issues. I learned a lot from his discussion. I do have a handout about web sites that we can use if we have some questions concerning fair labor standards. Talked about court reorganization and the big message there was that they are not going to consolidate the Clerk of Courts Office. They evidently got so much discussion on that that they totally backed off on that whole proposal. We had a speaker from the legislature who handles appropriations for the court system. Representative Lorbach from Tama County, he spoke, as well as a representative from the Court Administrators fund. There is certainly still are some shortcomings in that budget. It got a little testy at times between the dialog. I think the court is really concerned about the monies that they weren’t allocated through the legislative appropriations. They just told the legislature, they gave last year and there is no more money to give and that if they were going to continue to cut their budgets it is going to have an impact on court services. It might even have a constitutional impact. That was interesting to hear their views. You know, there’s talk about taking the Clerk of Courts and putting it back into County government. There again there is a discussion. Some County’s would like that, but the Court system feels that it would definitely be a step backward. We have, they felt a very good court structure in the State of Iowa. Other States look to us as far as what we have as far as court services and it would be a mistake to look at a drastic reorganization of that. I have some handouts about the County government legislative priorities that ISAC put together. So I’ll hand those out to the people. Pat I don’t know if you have anything else to add about things that were discussed.
Harney: Yes, I’ll touch on that briefly.
Stutsman: OK. Yesterday I attended the ISAC University Agenda. They had 3 tracks this year. One was on the finance track, a technical track, and an office improvement track. I attended the finance track. We heard Dawn Gingrich from Linn County talk about budgeting. She did an outstanding job. Jeff and I got some ideas that I think we’re going to bring back to the Finance Committee to look at doing some changes here. I think we’re on the right track. We’ve got some good processes in place, but there’s always room for improvement. Attended a session on TIFs. This was just a good basic overview of TIFs and how other Counties use them. We don’t use TIFs to a great extent at a County level. We do have TIFs in the County that are used by the municipalities, but a lot of County governments use them for housing and things. So it was interesting to get that background and that information. I attended GASB session. That was way over my head. Thank goodness Jeff was sitting there. Annie Neilsen, who is with the State Auditor’s office, did a really good job of walking through how you begin to fill out this form. I just thought I’m glad somebody else is doing this. Even a lot of the Auditors in the group were getting lost about how it’s going to be set up. He had some good models there that I think would really be helpful for Counties to follow. I can’t believe how helpful the State Auditor’s office is in getting this in place. So it was good to just be exposed to that and get a better understanding. I feel once it’s in place it’s going to be a real good tool for County taxpayers to understand about County financing. We’ll just have a balance sheet and explain about what our assets are, what are our liabilities. Like so many things I think it’s going to be a nightmare getting there, but once we get there, I think it’s going to be a good thing for County government. I’m sure glad Jeff Horne is doing it, not me. But the Auditor’s office will be very involved with it too. So it will be good. The last session was given by Tony Roetlin that was on the basics of borrowing. Tony had a good handout. It kind of went over some of the essential services that we could borrow for. It was good background for our discussions as we talk about if this is kind of the route that County government or our County wants to go. It was amazing to me the amount of debt some Counties have. That’s what’s so interesting about going to these meetings and listening to what other Counties are doing, especially a lot of the smaller rural counties. Boy, some of them have sizeable debt. I guess we can be very pleased that we don’t have that here in Johnson County. Then I did attend another meeting that wasn’t related to ISAC, but it was an opportunity to meet with other democratic elected officials across the State. Sheila Riggs who is the Chair of the Democratic Party for the State of Iowa, organized it. It was good to get together with fellow elected democratic officials across the State. I hope they continue to do that. It was a good time. That’s it. That’s what I’ve been doing all week. I don’t think I have anything else I did on last Friday.
Neuzil: Yes, I saw you at the Business fair.
Stutsman: Oh yes, I was there wasn’t I. OK. Thank you. So I did do some things locally too.
Thompson: Pat do you want to go next so you can continue with the ISAC Board?
Harney: I can go through my week real briefly here. Last Thursday the Board had their budget work session. They’re going to have another one coming up today I think. Friday I attended a meeting at the Department of Corrections in Cedar Rapids. The Corrections officers are using the new shared office space down here at 2105 Broadway. It’s the Community Center now. They’ve set up an office for individuals in the area that can come in to discuss issue with them if they have any problems or any issues in the particular area, they can visit with the officers or with the corrections officers. They have corrections officers assigned to this area now who actually check on parolees and clients that are in that area. They can meet there to discuss issues and do their business. It’s working out really well. It’s working good with Iowa City. The communication between corrections and Cedar Rapids and the ones that are working here and with the local law enforcement. So they’re working together in the particular area and other areas around the Community. Naturally the budget cuts are lulling out for them, but they still have a lot of uncertainties in the future. The future of Hope House is still uncertain. They added dollars to carry them through July. After July I’m not sure what will happen, whether they’ll cut or whether there will be more funds becoming available for them. So hopefully that will stay open. They’ve also added a high risk corrections unit, that is working in this particular area and Cedar Rapids where they work with high risk offenders who are coming out of prisons and into the Communities. They check on them daily, at all different hours of the night and during the day. It’s working real well according to reports. They’re finding electronic monitoring is not real effective without actual supervision of clients that are out in the Community. That they do need to be checked on from time to time. That it’s not just the idea that they be placed out into the Community with a wrist band. You actually have to physically check them on occasions. Friday, as Terrence mentioned, I attended the business Expo, the walk of the stars at Carver Hawkeye. It was good turnout, it had good exhibition booths. I believe there was something like 1,000 people Friday evening and something like 1,700 on Saturday. They had a very good turnout. There was like a 100 exhibitions in place over there. So it was very good. As Sally mentioned ISAC, Iowa State Association of Counties in Des Moines. We attended that. It was very informative, Ombudsman as she said went over the open meeting and records laws. It was really good. They really got into the confidentiality issues that we always come up against. I didn’t realize that they do have exception to the law and there’s many that give you reasonable delay, where you can sit back and take a second look and decide if these things need to be released or not. You don’t have to do that immediately. You can confer with you County Attorneys and get legal advice before you actually release records. As Sally mentioned the drivers license service, is a big one. There’s 48 counties currently contracting with the State to deliver the drivers licenses to their communities. There are 17 Counties that she said and they’re adding one, Clay County, where they have full time services. But the smaller Counties that don’t have them, if they don’t take on the drivers license services, the people in those counties will have to go to a full time county to get their drivers license services. So it’s almost making them take on the drivers license, otherwise they have to travel so far. One of the things she also mentioned was the Recorders Office, one of the things they really noted, even with the economy as it is right now, across the State, they’re making record recordings of land transactions, house purchases and new home buildings and things like that being recorded. So the economy, even though it seems like it’s down, they’re really busy. We had also lunch with the legislatures, democrats and republican representatives both were there. They gave some good reports to us on where they’re going and what they’re doing. There’s obvious difference of opinion of how they want to do things, but I think they’ll come together. One of the things I did note, was that the Chamber Alliance is pushing hard for the road to actually stall our changes, which really effects Counties in general. What they want to do, Johnson County would come out pretty good because they want to adjust the dollars to areas by population, but it really leaves the small Counties out there high and dry without dollars to keep the roads up, so it may look on the surface as a good program, but I think the small counties need the benefits of those dollars as well. Also, Wednesday I attended JCCOG Urban Planning and also JCCOG rural. The Emergency Management meetings last night, they’re working with all the small communities in the area. They’re making this a storm ready County, where they’re giving the weather spotters class. They are conducted bio-terrorism classes. They’re working well and they’re also preparing Counties for any emergencies that come where mitigation may come into play. They’re wrapping all of that up. So they’re doing a very good job for us. This morning the Chamber Board Directors meeting at Linquist Center, they’re main issue this morning was economic development and it’s rural versus urban areas and how they’re working through that. I had to leave that early to make it to this meeting. So, that was my week.
Thompson: Thank you. Mike?
Lehman: I also attended the Business Fair on Friday. I liked the idea that you get people focused there, you get to see their services, the products that they offer. You get to meet the owners and employees. It’s also a good forum for us. Most people like to weigh in on the things that we deal with. They always have good insight there on maybe something we either haven’t considered or have and we get a chance to explain it to them why we took our actions and stuff. Yesterday afternoon I attended the homebuilders association’s open house. Their new facility down there and their new parking ramp on Gilbert Street. It’s a very nice facility. I got to visit with some of the members of the homebuilders there and some of their… There again a chance to visit with some of their takes on some of the activities that we partake in. Last night I attended the Iowa City Airport Zoning Commission on behalf of Sally. The main purpose on the agenda there was to review a proposed ordinance for updating and zoning of the airport. I’d kind of liken it to what we did is identify a corridor for Oakdale Boulevard. They need to… A flight plan path, they need to identify for, to be in compliance with Federal Regulations. That will be coming to the Planning and Zoning Commission, possibly in March and then to our Board, the public hearing as any ordinance change would need. It would basically effect the Eastern runway, most of that would be in the 2 mile fringe areas with Iowa City. It might restrict some of the heights of buildings and stuff like this, but as you can imagine it’s a flight plan, so the further out you get the less effected it is. It’s something that if we do pass, then we’re going to have to be aware of when building permits are issued, to make sure there is compliance there. I don’t see it being a big factor, but it is something they need to do to keep in Federal regulations for their fundings and stuff. I think that’s all I had. Everything else got covered along with the budgets.
Thompson: Thanks. Terrence.
Neuzil: Another busy week as a member of the Board of Supervisors. I had the opportunity to give a presentation to the Sunrise Optimist Club, which was a great opportunity to share with the gentleman about what the Board of Supervisors do, some of the responsibilities. Then I had the opportunity to discuss some of the issues, some of those issues including the jail, our budget and human service funding. It was well attended and a real nice event. I thank the Board for allowing me to do that. I attended the Iowa Valley RC&D, the R stands for Resource, the C stands for Conservation and the D stands for Development. That was held in Williamsburg. I’m on that Committee to replace Pat as we switched around some committees around here. I intend to work primarily with a subcommittee on that, that has to do with the Iowa Valley scenic byway. That’s a byway right now that’s in development, that would include Tama, Benton and Iowa Counties, but would also have the opportunity to have loops as well as a bicycle trail that I’d like to see connect to Kent Park from that. So I got on that subcommittee. In addition some of the projects include a lot of demonstration projects with the Iowa River Valley Wetland, Woodland and Prairie restorations. Here in our community, I’ll be working with Camp Cardinal, road flood plain, their wetland restoration that’s well on it’s way in Coralville as well as working with the University of Iowa with the Iowa wet prairie restoration as well. Those are some of the things that I’ll be working on for the County over this next year. Hawkeye Friday Listening Post, I had one at the Hungry Hobo in Coralville. I had a gentleman from down in rural Lone Tree come on by and tell me about the some of the issues that he’s concerned with primarily dust and that potential of a public health hazard that is becoming. In addition I’ll be having a Hawkeye Friday Listening Post tomorrow, that will be held at the Iowa City Senior Center, so people will attend. Thanks.
Thompson: Thank you. For my report, Mike and I met with Mark for our regular mentoring meeting last Tuesday. In the afternoon the Safety Committee met. This is a new committee that has been set up with representatives from all the departments. As a result of our changing our workman’s comp insurance to the Iowa Communities Assurance Pool. Two weeks ago we had Dean Shottey from that organization in to talk with us. Dean is the one that talks to us about actual accident rate and how to prevent injuries among workers. There’s another employee there named Norma Halling who will be talking with us about having procedures and policies in place that set a good stage for a low injury rate. She’s asked to be on the Board’s agenda, I think sometime in February she’s going to come in to talk to us. It was an interesting meeting. A lot of good people there. It’s quite clear that the new insurance group is going to be much more assertive with us about having good policies and good practices in place to make sure our workplace is safe. Tomorrow the Board has the Ambulance interviews in the afternoon. I should remind everyone that I won’t be here for that. From 9-3 tomorrow is the pre-big conference for the financial software. It’s been interesting, the amount of response we’ve gotten. We’ve had a lot of inquiries, so I’d anticipate that there would be quite a number of bidders for out financial software. Next Monday is the Conference Board, the County Assessor’s Conference Board at 6:30. I don’t know if I’ll be back, but we’ll have 2 people there?
Stutsman: At least. Aren’t we supposed to have 3?
Lehman: 3 for a quorum.
Neuzil: I think we’ll be able to work that out.
Thompson: Then on Tuesday the Jail Statistics Committee is meeting. We’re going to hear a report on the jail workgroup about the things that we looked at during all those meetings last year. At 1:30 on Tuesday, a meeting about the 5 Year Road Plan. On Wednesday in the afternoon the Board has budget meetings. Is there any other business from the Board of Supervisors?
WORK SESSION: MONTHLY REPORT/UPDATE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Neuzil, Thompson, Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne, and Assistant Planner Dan Swartzendruber are working together to develop an economic development plan or policy for Johnson County. Neuzil said in the past there was a public committee and they are considering inviting them back, developing a new committee, or reducing the current committee. He said Swartzendruber put together a plan identifying important areas and that the committee also felt was important. It begins with plan justification and why they are doing this. He said they are doing this because in the Land Use Plan it calls for the creation and adoption of new economic development plan or policy. He said the plan goes through purpose and intent. He said they also identified some of the economic development policies of land use and goals. He said some of the goals include preserving and enhancing a balanced thriving local economy and promoting and enhancing the development and expansion of existing local businesses. Neuzil said the objectives are to retain jobs, to create jobs, to increase the tax base, to increase property values, retain wealth and incur economic self-sufficiency, as well as reduce conflicts between rural and urban economic development. He said they are also working on identifying economic areas of growth, primarily key intersections, unincorporated villages and fringe areas that they could focus on. Neuzil said they would also discuss some things they would like to see in the way of economic incentives, like wages and childcare. Thompson said Swartzendruber did a really nice job of making a thorough draft document outlining all of the areas they need to cover. She said that the Committee just needs to decide what the policy for Johnson County should be.
Thompson: The next item on our agenda is reports and inquiries from the public.
Reverend Bob Welsh: Two quick but important things. One, Betty McCray, who is Vice-Chairman of the Nutrition Committee thought it was appropriate and drafted a letter. We didn’t ask you about this Carol since you’re a member of both groups, but this is signed by Rae Blanchard, Betty McCray, Ruth Bell, Helen Lowe, Diane Duncan Goldsmith and myself. It merely says the below listed members of the Senior Dining Nutrition Advisory Board joined together to express our appreciation for the opportunity you gave us to serve you and the citizens of Johnson County and to support the important service Senior Dining has been to this area. Furthermore, we wish to express to you thanks due to you for the many years the County Board of Supervisors has been the subcontractors for the Senior Dining Program. Many thousands of meals have been available to Johnson County residents during these past years. Sincerely. The second thing I wanted to remind you of is that there will be a workshop on SEATS eligibility next Wednesday at 6:30 to 8 at the public library, room A. One of the features of this is that the SEATS riders are eligible have worked out to and from that workshop. Basically we’ll be going over the forms that the City’s use in determining eligibility and offering practical tips on what to do to get approval. Ron from Iowa City Transit Manager and Roger Fisher from Coralville Transit Operation Manger will be there. Kevin Doyle, in relation to what’s the appeal process. David Perdy with Elder Services will be sharing some of the concerns and suggestions that have been identified to him. Then we’ll have an open discussion. Including Mike O’Donnell who is Chair of the SEATS Advisory Committee will end decision in terms of asking if there are any specific things that we want to suggest to the City. We remind you that the Cities are the ones that set the eligibility and determine eligibility. It’s not a County function, but I’m hoping many of you will be here and many from the Community will come too.
Thompson: Thanks Bob. Any others? R.J.
ASSISTANT PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR R.J. MOORE: OPEN MEETINGS LAW AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: I know I’m not the public I’m staff. But somebody brought something up during her report from ISAC about open meetings along with public information. We all of course follow the County engineers advice on what in our office is open to the public, but since we’ve implemented the building code and now we require architectural and engineering drawings for new structures, especially houses. We’re aware that a lot of times people drive around the County, see a house they like, get an address, come to our office and take and copy all those plans. Was that brought up at your ISAC meeting at all Sally?
Stutsman: No.
Moore: We have always thought those architectural engineering drawings were the property of the person that paid for them and the engineer or architect that bought them.
Stutsman: You’re kidding. You mean, wow.
Moore: There are people that come to our office and make copies.
Stutsman: I never would have even thought of doing that.
Moore: I wanted to bring it up, I asked Rick if it was all right to bring it up now, because you may enter into that discussion later.
Stutsman: I wish we would have known that before, because I certainly would have brought that up for discussion.
Moore: Right now we get, per Pat’s advice, we let them make copies of those plans and stuff. But I know some people pay thousands of dollars for those plans.
Stutsman: Sure. Maybe they’ll have to register…
Harney: I do have a phone number you can call to get an answer on that.
Moore: OK. Maybe I can get with you, but some how we just wanted to bring it to your attention in case you discuss it later as something that comes up.
Thompson: Thanks R.J. Well if there’s no further business we’ll adjourn.
Adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary