MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DECEMBER 2 AND 4, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Discussion: Johnson County Space Analysis Study
Discussion: Emergency Medical Services Training Medical Contract
Discussion: 28E Agreement for East Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium
Discussion: Planning Future Work Session with Planning and Zoning
Discussion: Board of Supervisors Office Staffing and Space Needs
Discussion: Computers for Employees
Discussion: Appointee to the Compensation Board
Discussion: Updating of Departmental Inventory
Discussion: Technology Budget Line Items; and Upcoming Agenda Items
Work Session with Elected Officials
Discussion: MECCA Employee Assistance Program
Update on Salary Survey and Revised Job Descriptions
Discussion: FY99 Budget Process
Discussion: Johnson County Space Needs
Discussion: Agenda Items for Meeting with Area Legislators
Discussion: Possible Updating of County Telephone System
Discussion: Delinquent Property Taxes
Discussion: Agenda Items for Upcoming Meeting with Area Legislators
Concerns with Hog Manufacturers
Reverend Bob Welsh: Procedures During Formal and Informal Meetings
Clifford Bell: Legality of Fringe Area Agreements
Reports (Lacina): Possible Phone Scam; and Utility Tax Enhancement
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:00 a.m. Members present were: Joseph Bolkcom, Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally Stutsman.
Stutsman: Chance to review the formal minutes of November 25th, I'm into the holidays Jonathan.
Jordahl: It's all planning here.
Stutsman: If not we'll put those on for formal action for Thursday.
DISCUSSION: JOHNSON COUNTY SPACE ANALYSIS STUDY
Stutsman: Business from the Board of Supervisors. Discussion regarding Johnson County space analysis study. Included with your agenda was a letter from Dwight Dobberstein outlining his proposal for beginning work on analysis of space needs for Johnson County. We had a meeting with Dwight and had asked him to put together a proposal for beginning to look at storage and space needs and this is what he has submitted. I was wondering how the Board felt about this. He has things pretty well outlined with letters and a survey included and a cost of $4,000 to do the study.
Lacina: Instead of piecemealing it as different departments kind of run into space I think this is a good way of looking at the entire County and starting to build budget for it and look down the road. I support the idea.
Stutsman: I do too Steve. I guess when I look at what we've been doing with strategic planning and the meeting with the elected officials and department heads. That was the top of everyone's list to begin looking at this space analysis and I think Dwight has put together a pretty good proposal to get started. The survey looked pretty complete as far as current needs and anticipating future needs.
Jordahl: I wonder if there would be a way of rolling this into a regular and ongoing strategic planning process so that we wouldn't have to decide, we've got a developing crisis here, maybe Sheriff's department all of the sudden we need a new jail, the cost of a new jail would be exorbitant. All of these capital budgets that we are doing are speaking to that, this is going to address our situation now but I wonder if there's a way to institutionalize this a little bit. I don't know if this would be an annual or a tri-annual or something kind of a review where maybe this questionnaire would go out to departments as part of a strategic planning process. I'd like to talk to Tim Shields about that on Friday and maybe roll that into the budget process as well. I mean if they were doing this now instead of doing this once in awhile we should do it regularly.
Stutsman: Well just to kind of do an annual update of where we're at...
Jordahl: Yes so we know where we are and we're putting the right amounts of money away in the capital projects budget.
Duffy: We'll probably do that for our budget process. Again in the past we have spent a lot of money on different departments where space needs wasn't a case of overlooking it.
Jordahl: I guess I don't mean we're overlooking anything.
Duffy: For $4,000 a consultant every year I don't think I would be for that. Is that what you're saying?
Jordahl: No I'm not saying hire Mr. Dobberstein every year, no offense to him or anything but...
Duffy: Because we'll know through Pat Langenberg's.
Jordahl: I think you're right. I think we've got in house staff that can handle this on an ongoing basis. I guess what I'm really saying is that I'd like to see the proposal not be a snapshot but be a program of how we can do this ourselves. Much as I would hope in the budgeting process we looked at a way of bringing whatever changes we make into a thing that we don't have to have a consultant come in and do.
Stutsman: I think that's for a later discussion. I think for here and now we need to just decide what we want to do with this proposal. if we want to go ahead with this, are there any changes we want to do with this. But I think this is at least a start in beginning to address these space needs and...
Jordahl: I guess just to carry my point I would like to suggest that we put this on the agenda for our Friday meeting with Tim Shields to one of those items we discuss is how this fits.
Stutsman: Right and it will be. It was identified as one of the strategic goals. To the page that says the Johnson County space analysis and it outlines the different departments, I need a few corrections. Under Court House, Juvenile Services is no longer there so do we want to look at Juvenile Services and their space needs or do we just assume that they're pretty well OK where they're at.
Jordahl: Well that includes Juvenile Detention doesn't it?
Stutsman: Right that's what I'm thinking of is Juvenile Services as...
Bolkcom: I think they should be included.
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: Should we include it under the Courthouse or should we include it as a separate entity?
Duffy: I would rather include it as a separate entity.
Jordahl: That would be fine.
Duffy: Because they're very important and it could be very costly in as far as our agreement with Linn County. We don't have that in writing yet.
Stutsman: Right. Right.
Duffy: I hope some day we do have that.
Administrative Assistant Carol Peters: Doesn't he mean by this Juvenile Probation?
Stutsman: That's what I took it to be. Should we say Juvenile Probation?
Duffy: But still... I would still rather have it by itself.
Stutsman: All right then we'll pull that out and have it a separate heading. Administration Building I think that was all pretty complete. I guess I would change Department of Health instead of Public Health. Then he's got listed out I don't know if we need to list out all of those different programs.
Bolkcom: Probably not.
Lacina: Probably not because if there is changing and if the grant goes away then so does that department or their section.
Stutsman: So should we just have one main heading Department of Health.
Lacina: Yes.
Stutsman: Then under Human Services I guess I thought maybe we should break it out into DHS, Veterans Affairs, MH/MR/DD and then Public Assistance. Look at all of those different departments because they're all separated they all work together but there might be discussion on whether to keep them all together or not. I guess I would take out SEATS and have that a separate one. Then do we want to look at Ambulance too? There's some talk from the Ambulance Department about having satellite offices.
Bolkcom: Do we need to look at Engineer?
Jordahl: Yes I guess I want to ask that? Isn't Engineer...
Bolkcom: Everything we look at is going to cost us money.
Duffy: Yes.
Lacina: Well but if we prioritize I would rather include it now for the initial prioritization.
Stutsman: If we want to look at... Because I think he does talk about future space needs so...
Bolkcom: But is he going to draw floor plans of Secondary Roads?
Stutsman: I think right now he's just doing a survey.
Lacina: One of the things we might do, we've got a ton of records from the Treasurer's Office for example in the second floor of the Engineers Building and so it might be that that would move out. Some of that stuff perhaps could be destroyed. Not historically significant but just old records. So there might be some space being freed up by some of these studies too, so I think we should do them all. Again it might not mean expansion it might just mean a readjustment.
Stutsman: He may find that they've got some space in some of those places out there that we could use for storage or whatever so...
Lacina: Right.
Stutsman: Carol I was going to ask about the cost. He said $4,000. Where will this come from? Will this come from General Services?
Peters: It would have to, yes.
Stutsman: OK.
Lacina: Now in thinking about space, we're looking at existing facilities, but do we also bring in the fact that we've got the County Farm with Chatham Oaks and see if there is space there for something? For storage or...
Jordahl: They've been talking about some kind of transitional apartments that they might like to build either there or in town or something. I'm not saying we should do that Charlie but it's a space thing the people are talking about.
Lacina: We had discussed putting up a low maintenance metal building where we would keep the temperature above freezing that on that site that could store records. Now that's not an option but at least in Dwight's looking at this from the County perspective instead of saying well you need to go out and buy a building he may say construct one on the county facility.
Stutsman: But I think for this particular study it's just to determine what our current needs and I think that discussion is down the road but I think for right now we need to just focus on this part of it.
Jordahl: I like your idea though Steve where you say it's down the road where in what form will we...
Lacina: Well that might be a possible solution as opposed to right now identifying a need. It's right now that Chatham Oaks probably doesn't have the need for space so that could be one of the answers if we identify a problem. Right now we're doing the problem identification.
Jordahl: I guess yes, that's the question. It seems like what we're focusing on now is what's the problem and not necessarily what's the answer.
Lacina: Sally is right in that.
Jordahl: But I think it's significant though that we might have a piece of the answer in the way people would present information if the question were asked more broadly like how do you see the future space utilization in your department rather than what can't you do now what are you having trouble with. They say where you see yourself going, where would you like to be ten years down the road. Maybe Sheriff Carpenter envisions a new jail maybe he doesn't. I don't know that but it would seem to me that...
Bolkcom: We could add that to the question, I mean there's a series of a dozen questions here. Maybe that ought to be one of the questions. Give people the freedom to kind of look at them and then...
Stutsman: Well it says filled or unfilled or future years away present/future, this includes.
Jordahl: It says staff positions. But in terms of space needs, we're kind of looking at a snapshot here.
Stutsman: Well I guess I feel we need to look at this snapshot first before we get too broad and I think we need to start with maybe identifying needs and then go from there because on the department head we have setting up a committee and I think maybe that could be part of the function of a committee as starting to look at the bigger picture. I think if we put too much into this it's going to get so burdensome we're not going to get anywhere with this it's just going to be too overwhelming.
Jordahl: Well the piece I'm trying to hang onto is the notion of projection. We may have some departments that are growing faster than others, a Juvenile Detention is an example where there is a pretty marked growth in utilization. Whatever the cause of that is, how likely it is to be sustained. That should be a part of the question we ask, it's what's the trend. Not just where you're at today, where are you going to be next year, where are you going to be in 5 years. That trend, that's really the question we're asking. I think we're assuming that we're functioning today.
Stutsman: Do we want to add that as a question?
Lacina: This is a good start.
Stutsman: What do you see as future trends?
Bolkcom: No, I don't have a problem with that.
Stutsman: OK, maybe 13...
Bolkcom: Hey there's Dwight now. I'm glad he's here.
Stutsman: Oh there's Dwight.
Bolkcom: Yes it really is hard to talk about this without him.
Stutsman: Come up to the table. We are discussing the questionnaire and... There's Pat too.
Jordahl: Good morning. Replay the tape.
Dobberstein: Good timing.
Stutsman: We're just in the middle of the discussion of the space needs and what you have put together, I'm really impressed with what you've put together. It looks like a good start.
Dobberstein: It made sense just to check with everybody and get the big picture first thing.
Stutsman: What we were discussing is the program questionnaire and maybe adding another question that deals with future needs that are identified by the particular departments and things.
Dobberstein: OK.
Stutsman: So that we get some ideas of things that they anticipate as far as future needs.
Dobberstein: Well we asked for future positions but you're thinking future equipment needs and...
Jordahl: Space needs.
Dobberstein: Space needs.
Jordahl: I'm looking at trends you know, if we've got an increase in the utilization of Juvenile Detention facilities for example, right now maybe we have the ability to get spaces through other agencies and other counties and we can do things but what's the future and how soon is it happening? I think the differential rates of change in different departments and I think that question should be addressed as part of this.
Bolkcom: That particular example is a thorny one though. Because you know we've been working with Linn County and they've conducted a specific long term study just in that area that took a couple years, in terms of juvenile detention, how many beds do we need. I don't know if that's what we're asking Dwight to do here. It seems to me it's more of a departmental, more of an internal staffing issue as opposed to, although the jail isn't that. Do we really want to... Has our work with Linn County fulfilled that particular question?
Jordahl: Well for that particular department perhaps. But I think the general question of are we looking at what are the problems today and being in a reactive mode, or are we planning here. Are we looking at what is going to happen. What do we fairly well know is going to happen. What will the needs be in 5 years that maybe we'll need to start budgeting now to meet. That's the question I'd like to see in here.
Lacina: So perhaps a 13th question which would say can you break down the short term space demands as opposed to long term. So for example the Treasurer may say that because of the confidentiality law that's been passed he will need more space to isolate those records short term. Once he's done that it's done, but in the long term there may be some departments that see a geometric growth in the WIC program or something. So if they could break down short term long term what is going to be just a blip in a need versus what's going to continue to grow. I don't know that you have that built in necessarily to the question. 12th somewhat..
Dobberstein: I tried to hit it on 12 but I think you're right. We can elaborate on that one.
Stutsman: If that's workable.
Dobberstein: Sure.
Stutsman: Dwight when you did the page on Johnson County spatial analysis, outlining. We made a few changes there.
Dobberstein: Yes we've got a revised copy with me that adds the Ambulance and separates the SEATS department, apparently they're in the new location now.
Stutsman: Then we were separating out Juvenile Probation too out of the Courthouse.
Dobberstein: OK. Yes I have that under the Courthouse and I'm not sure where they are right now.
Stutsman: Well they're not in the courthouse any longer. They're off of is it Dubuque Street?
Lacina: Dubuque.
Dobberstein: Dubuque Street.
Lacina: So we break them out and have them as separate entity which would include Juvenile Detention as well is that correct?
Stutsman: Yes.
Lacina: The entire Juvenile Services area. Probably need to talk to the judges on that as well.
Stutsman: Department of Public Health. We didn't think there was a need to break down each one of those programs. I think maybe just talking to...
Dobberstein: Just in general. OK.
Stutsman: Uh-huh. Then Human Services we did break it down more and broke it down into Department of Human Services, Veterans Affairs, MH/MR/DD unit and then Public Assistance. That should be General Assistance.
Lacina: DHS being the State component.
Stutsman: Yes the State part of it.
Bolkcom: I have a question about the work plan itself and whether or not it says in the first 5 points, we're going to meet with folks, we're going to do the survey and floor plans are going to be drawn. Will you be drawing floor plans for each of these buildings as part of this initial assessment?
Dobberstein: Well I guess rough plans yes just to get an idea of the size and relationship to size of other buildings and not detailed plans, no.
Bolkcom: OK.
Dobberstein: I think it's sometimes helpful to see that down on paper.
Bolkcom: You bet. I agree. One of the other questions I guess for the Board is do we, given the fact that this is a strategic goal the Board, given the fact that it's a priority of our department heads, does it make sense for us to have an in house committee that works with Dwight as we proceed over the next few months to do this and try and develop a team to essentially shepherd this thing forward. Because I guess I wonder who is going to be... Is it going to be Pat, is that a big load for him. Is it going to be a couple members of the Board who are on the space committee or would it be helpful to have some department heads and elected officials, kind of a committee that could interact with Dwight. If Dwight has questions they could meet on a regular basis, whatever that is, once a month, whatever would be appropriate.
Dobberstein: That's exactly what we did on the Courthouse a few years ago and it worked well.
Physical Plant Director Pat Langenberg: Is this something we might want somebody from the outside to question?
Bolkcom: Yes.
Duffy: Sally and I have discussed this and I think we came up with a committee didn't we Sally?
Stutsman: Well we did. We identified those people that have immediate space needs. The Courthouse, the jail, DHS, Health Department and put together a committee just to run some ideas by them. We really haven't formalized that committee. I notice it's on the work session for the elected officials and department heads and maybe that's a time we could talk about doing this. Are you asking to stop this process until we...
Bolkcom: Not at all. I'm saying I think we should simultaneously have a working committee of our staff and outside folks would be fine with me, so that as this commences we have a committee up and running the day Dwight begins. I don't think that's a real... I think there's probably some volunteers out there that would be very helpful to Dwight in the process.
Stutsman: So this afternoon at the department head meeting we could begin the process of recruiting those volunteers and I'm sure they'll be the same people that we met with initially, Charlie, but it will just be a more formalized group that will work with Dwight and we can explain to them what we've done this morning and what we've initiated so far and then go from there.
Duffy: I will say that when you talk about space needs there's usually controversial issues, do mine, don't do this one... One of the problems with space needs and the Sheriff's Department has brought that up, that really he has kind of an unstable budget when it pertains to space needs because it looks like alcohol content was lowered by the state legislature a couple of times and then here comes the ones that drive around drunk, I guess you'd call it. But, that's been lowered so here are more people arrested and down the line we don't know what will happen so some of the space needs by law have to be taken care of and some of them don't, but it can get quite controversial. And it's a large issue so we could have a little help as far as I'm concerned.
Dobberstein: I think we're just trying to get a picture of what the needs are right now and we're not trying to be very controversial about that.
Jordahl: I see sort of a conflict or contrast between the 2 ways of looking at this. We're talking about an immediate short term problem and immediate short term solutions which may cost significant dollars. We've been talking about the Administration Building for example and some pretty interesting numbers have been thrown around here. I guess I would caution us about not looking at the entire range of options, the idea of the county farm that you mentioned Steve, that there's a lot of space out there. It says here under analytical services, number one, under the proposal is prepare conceptual plans of possible alternatives for Supervisors review so the idea is that we're going to address these space needs by spending money somewhere. Now is it as efficient to spend money in a number of different places where we're already pretty cramped in order to address a short term problem when we might spend that same money on some other solution that would more effectively address long term needs. I really think that the long term needs to be looked at at the same time as the short term so as to guarantee, well not guarantee, but at least give us a greater probability of spending our money wisely. I mean to give us alternatives that really do look at both long and short term needs together.
Stutsman: I think that's what we're going to be doing Jonathan.
Jordahl: Well it doesn't in here say go look at the County Farm.
Stutsman: Well but I don't think we're there yet. I think we need to identify what our needs are and then start presenting some options.
Dobberstein: Yes. There are some other departments here that the County has that we're not looking at.
Jordahl: Right.
Dobberstein: We're already making some decisions there that limit the scope. I don't know if that's appropriate or not but it seems like these were the offices and departments that needed help and that have a lot of space and then we could analyze those. If there's others like for example the fairgrounds, I didn't think we needed to get into that but if you think there's a...
Lacina: Well and in the past you have been excellent at seeing directions and sensing it and moving it. As this goes along it can be a flexible process instead of locked into it so...
Dobberstein: Well this is very flexible.
Stutsman: The changes that we made, will that change the $4,000.
Dobberstein: Well no. That's just a guess on our part. We don't have a clue how long this is going to take.
Jordahl: Did you hear that term?
Dobberstein: This could go on for awhile and we thought maybe you would like to have a top number so that you know it's not going to cost you more than...
Jordahl: Oh, not to exceed OK. There you go.
Stutsman: Are there any other questions or comments?
Duffy: Just one, are there are any surveys on rent versus owning?
Dobberstein: Well that's a question I had. And maybe you can help me. I don't know if the County actually leases or rents space and whether we should have a question in here as to what they pay...
Bolkcom: Yes. Yes.
Stutsman: Excellent, yes. We need to.
Duffy: If you could determine that...
Dobberstein: That might make a difference as to how we...
Bolkcom: You bet.
Stutsman: Because the Department of Human Services is rented and SEATS location is rented.
Bolkcom: Juvenile Probation.
Lacina: In the past we've looked at roughly the $85,000 we've spent for rent on North Governor for DHS and we've tried to calculate what that would buy us in terms of making payments. However looking at the cost per square foot of just over $6 a square foot persuaded us that this was in fact a good investment to rent. But that is an option.
Dobberstein: We should get another question maybe that asks that.
Bolkcom: Yes.
Lacina: Are you renting your existing facility?
Dobberstein: What are your operating costs? Yes.
Jordahl: It has been discussed previously that we have a lot of vacant commercial space in the area. Grocery stores that have upsized and left their old facilities for example. The idea has been floated that we might take services that are now separate and combine them, Health and DHS for example is one possibility. We have facilities we're now spending money on. My earlier question is do we go in there and kind of reconfigure where the walls are and put people in different offices or do we look at a solution which isn't listed here among the things that might be looked at.
Stutsman: I think that's down the road.
Dobberstein: Typically these studies take that direction. You're looking at one, a new building, or remodeling your existing building or buying a building and trying to remodel it. Those seem to be the 3 options that we always end up looking at. Which building you might buy and remodel. You put a need from other people. But we can analyze those options and see which makes the most sense.
Jordahl: When you say usually end up looking at though do you mean later on in this study that you propose for this $4,000 ...
or are you talking about as a consequence of this study, recognizing the needs, then going on.
Dobberstein: Well I would suggest at the end of this first phase, the research and investigative services, we get together and just kind of make a report. Then before we go into this analytical stage that we talk about what options we want to look at. Then, yes, as part of this study we will look at those different options, a new building, wherever that would be, or just adding on here what the needs are. Maybe you have some other ideas.
Jordahl: Yes, that's all I was asking. Thank you.
Bolkcom: I think having our own committee with people that know what the lay of the land is will be helpful to Dwight in trying to figure all that out. How many people would it be appropriate to have on a committee, do you have any opinion about that?
Dobberstein: Well, I think we have 5 on the Courthouse committee. There was a Supervisor and Pat and we had a couple of judges and...
Stutsman: So we'll get volunteers this afternoon and then we'll let you know who's working on the committee.
Dobberstein: OK.
Stutsman: Carol, should we put this on then for Thursday for approval? I guess I would say, Dwight, for you to begin whenever it's convenient for you. Just to keep this moving.
Dobberstein: Great.
Stutsman: OK, thank you. Any other questions?
Bolkcom: Hopefully we can have a committee by Thursday too, and then maybe make that part of the motion.
Stutsman: Well I was thinking this afternoon that we should have it.
Duffy: I would say, Sally, because I started this, we probably should be on the committee that way if one of us couldn't make it then the other one... Because this is no small (inaudible).
Stutsman: Right, I agree. I think there's going to be different phases of it and probably sub-committees that will come out of this and what not so...
Dobberstein: Sure.
Stutsman: This is a start.
Bolkcom: Thank you.
Dobberstein: Thanks.
Stutsman: Thank you, thanks Pat.
Lacina: Pat, while you're here, yesterday when the phones went down, there was an emergency flash up on the fire department that the building was on fire. In the future when we get those calls, do we refer them to you as far as the phone system or...
Langenberg: Say this again, now what happened?
Lacina: It came back that there was an alarm going off...
Stutsman: The security system, people called and said that there was an airlock or something and it was flashing that there was an emergency here at this building.
Langenberg: Oh, what happened on that. Was this yesterday afternoon?
Lacina: Yes.
Stutsman: Yes, after 3:00 and you had gone and I...
Langenberg: No, we were downstairs, we were working on the air for the building. We did not know that we had cut a line.
Stutsman: I see.
Langenberg: What it does is go through Minnesota and they either contact the Sheriff's Office or they contact me.
Stutsman: OK.
Langenberg: What it is is the building there itself.
Lacina: That's when we get...
Langenberg: It had nothing to do with the phones. I was going to say, if it had something to do with the phones, we've got to get that changed.
Stutsman: No.
Langenberg: But no, that wasn't it at all.
Lacina: I thought it was, OK.
Stutsman: Yes, right, then when they came back on, I answered the phone and got through.
Langenberg: It's the same type of deal when we had our snow storm a month ago when they contacted me. Everything always goes through a central location in Minneapolis, it goes through the Sheriff's Office or myself, and if they can't get me, they get a hold of the Sheriff and then they page me. So they always try me first on this line.
Lacina: If we can't get you, for example, if you're off site working, we roll to the Sheriff's Office?
Langenberg: Right, then they dispatch me.
Lacina: OK, got it.
Stutsman: OK, so that's what we should do is call the Sheriff's Office.
Langenberg: Right.
Stutsman: Because it was after 3:00 and I assumed that you weren't, we couldn't find you.
Langenberg: No, we were downstairs working, we were downstairs in the boiler room.
Lacina: Thanks. I just wanted to know where...
Stutsman: Yes, it's good to clarify that.
Lacina: Yes, thanks.
Langenberg: Any problems you have, always go through them. They can get a hold of me 24 hours a day so that's no problem.
Stutsman: That's good to know.
DISCUSSION: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TRAINING MEDICAL CONTRACT
Stutsman: Discussion regarding Emergency Medical Services Training money contract in the amount of $10,235. Carol has this on. I think that contract is included too, in our agenda. Any comments on the medical services contract?
Peters: Actually, this is just another renewal, we've been doing this, I'm going to say probably close to 10 years. It's just a matter of submitting the application and then we get the training funds back. These are strictly for training. These funds are.
Lacina: Sounds good.
Stutsman: No changes. So basically just...
Peters: No.
Stutsman: All right. So we'll put that on then for Thursday. Any questions or comments from the Board? We'll just go ahead and put that on for Thursday.
Jordahl: It's basically for the Ambulance Service.
Peters: It's not actually for the Ambulance Service, but what it is is for training, like your first responders and people out in the community. The Ambulance Service does a lot of the training.
Jordahl: OK.
Lacina: Like some of our volunteer firefighters have gone through some of this.
Peters: Yes.
Stutsman: Moving on to discussion regarding 28E agreement for East Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium. Joe, you had put this on the agenda.
DISCUSSION: 28E AGREEMENT FOR EAST CENTRAL IOWA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM
Bolkcom: Yes, let me give you a little background on this. Over the last year, the JTPA, or the East Central Iowa Employment and Training Coalition has changed from its administrative entity and it used to be the City of Cedar Rapids. That's where the staff, Bob Valentine and his staff were housed. Last year the Board made a decision to entertain new administrative entities. Kirkwood Community College was successful in presenting a proposal to basically become the administrative entity. So the proposed 28E agreement that we have in front of us essentially puts that into shape. It's essentially making Kirkwood the administrative agency. The major changes are that Kirkwood becoming the entity and the staff has subsequently moved to Kirkwood. It's also, the new addition is Cedar County. They have been added as an additional County in the consortium. They are indicated on the signature page. In terms of the effects on Johnson County, we still have our 3 persons, which would be, I'm currently that representative with Sally as an alternate. Then the other 2 would be one from Iowa City and one from Coralville. Those are both City Council people from both of those communities that are representatives of Johnson County. So that is kind of in a nutshell the agreement. It just simply will replace the existing agreement, and has Kirkwood as the entity rather than the City of Cedar Rapids.
Stutsman: Carol, did Pat have a chance to review this? I think it was sent over to him.
Peters: Yes, I'm not sure, but basically this agreement is the same as what you had before with just a few changes.
Lacina: Joe, what's the status of that lawsuit against Mr. Valentine over there. Has that been resolved?
Bolkcom: No, it hasn't.
Lacina: Has it been resolved as far as the County's contributing to that defense?
Bolkcom: No, it hasn't.
Lacina: OK.
Bolkcom: There's a sub-committee of the consortium. Henry Herwig's on it and Mayor Clancy. They've been designated by the greater Board to basically work through the process. There was an attempt to do some mediation and it was, I believe it was deferred. There was a meeting set up to do that and it didn't happen.
Lacina: Is it your recommendation to make any changes in this or is it working?
Bolkcom: I think it's working fine.
Lacina: Thanks.
Bolkcom: There was a former law, a little more detail, there was a lawsuit brought by a former employee against JTPA, and because the consortium is all these organizations, it's Linn County, Johnson County, all these other counties, we share in the expense of that. It's undecided what that might be at this point. There are some legal fees. But it's divided up, I'm not sure how many entities, and 8th each or a 12th each.
Duffy: I agree with Sally. We should ask the County Attorney's advice. Anything but one word...
Bolkcom: Yes, I'm told that Pat wrote the original agreement, the original 28E agreement establishing this long ago.
Stutsman: OK. He has had, this was sent over to him and he has had it.
Duffy: He's got it?
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Duffy: OK.
Peters: The only thing that changed was the addition of Cedar County.
Bolkcom: Basically.
Stutsman: OK, all right.
Lacina: Well perhaps if we just drop a note to him, saying that we intend to take action on Thursday.
Bolkcom: That's a good idea.
Stutsman: That might be a good idea. Just call him and say do you have anything.
Duffy: That's a good idea.
DISCUSSION: PLANNING FUTURE WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING AND ZONING
Stutsman: Then if it's OK we'll just put that on Thursday then for action. I'd like to move to item E. That's a work session with Planning and Zoning. I see Rick's here, rather than taking up more of his time. What Rick and I had talked about is maybe having a work session between the Supervisors and the Zoning Department to kind of give them some direction as to what they should be working on. They've got a number of things on their plate and I think that the Board just has a responsibility to prioritize some of those things and give them feedback as to what we think are the more important things that they should be working on. Kind of just discuss things of that nature in a work session. I wondered if we could look at our calendars and see what would be a good time to do that.
Lacina: So we're going to go into your department and tell you what you're going to work on?
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: No. Really I think what Sally and I were talking about is more, we're being pulled by different areas to do certain things. What I want is more of a direction from the Board.
Stutsman: The 5 of us.
Dvorak: Instead of by the public or by individuals. I want direction from the Board because we seem to be spinning our wheels in a lot of different areas and not getting support.
Stutsman: Some of the things that I kind of wrote down were of course the Comp Plan, sensitive areas, ordinance, conditional use permits, the fringe area agreements of all the cities, the building codes, the transportation study, there's a lot of things. I think if we give them some directions that this is what the 5 of us really want them to work on, to spend their time on. They're all important, but they're all not at the top of the list. I think it's only fair that we give them some feedback from us in a consensus manner so that they know where they need to spend their energies.
Lacina: Based on your volunteer board, as far as the Zoning Commission too, in their time it focuses. It's a good idea.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Lacina: So had you discussed a date or...
Stutsman: No, I didn't have any ideas about time.
Lacina: Well since we meet with Mr. Shields Friday, I'm going to suggest we roll it definitely at least into that next week. We've got interviews for HR the following week.
Stutsman: Well, the 9th, 10th, and then the 11th. We've tentatively planned for SEATS interviews. I'm looking at maybe the following week. I don't think there's any real urgency.
Dvorak: No, timing, we did something similar to this last year too. It's in preface to the budget. If the Board feels as though we need to really do everything, then obviously we don't have the staff to do that. So either we'll contract or if you choose, we'll hire more staff. If it should come up that's the highest priority to accomplish everything, plus a lot of additional stuff, time is relevant as far as the budget is concerned.
Lacina: Is your zoning meeting...
Dvorak: If you want us to try and keep going the way it is, then it's not a budget issue.
Lacina: Is your zoning meeting the 8th?
Dvorak: Our zoning meeting? Monday.
Lacina: Oh, the 1st, all right.
Stutsman: No, the 8th.
Jordahl: The 8th.
Stutsman: It would be the 8th.
Bolkcom: How about the week of the 15th?
Lacina: Well if they are going to meet Monday night, this would be a time that they've normally scheduled anyway for volunteers. Is that too soon?
Dvorak: Just staff right now.
Stutsman: Yes, just staff and Board.
Lacina: OK.
Stutsman: We were talking about... How about the afternoon of the 15th? That's a Monday afternoon.
Dvorak: Sure.
Stutsman: How's that look on everybody's calendar?
Bolkcom: OK so far.
Lacina: We're...
Bolkcom: One?
Duffy: What time was that, Sally?
Stutsman: One, 1:30.
Duffy: 1:00.
Lacina: 1:30.
Stutsman: 1:30, all right.
Dvorak: We have lunch problems, have some people out so 1:30.
Stutsman: All right, that will be a work session then with the Zoning Department.
Bolkcom: It might be helpful, Rick, or for the department to come in with some ideas on what things that you would see as a priority and represent those to us so that we can kind of kick back and forth.
Dvorak: That's what we did last year. We had our list of priorities and then...
Bolkcom: See what you're thinking.
Dvorak: Yes.
Bolkcom: As well as what we're thinking.
Jordahl: Well and you've indicated that there are already brought forward some of the ideas that you have been working on that may not be fully completed yet. So that's some sort of a sense of that, too.
Dvorak: Well it goes on and on because I assume we're going to end up with 20 different studies in the future for different things too. It's a lot of time. Also especially that we use, so... I think just letting us know what you think is the highest priority is what we want. We also will come back with what we feel are things that we can really accomplish in a reasonable amount of time.
Bolkcom: Great.
Stutsman: Sounds good.
Dvorak: 1:30 on the 15th?
Stutsman: Right.
Dvorak: Thank you.
Stutsman: OK, thanks.
Bolkcom: Thanks, Rick.
Stutsman: Charlie, you wanted to leave.
Duffy: Yes, I'm going to...