DISCUSSION: SPACE NEEDS FOR NEW STAFF
Stutsman: Space needs for new staff. We are rethinking our space needs in view of our discussion in the last couple of weeks about perhaps adding another support staff to the Board of Supervisors and because of our space needs it looks like the only way we can go is into the Recorder's Office. So I invited Deb to come in this morning to discuss this. Backing up, we did give Deb direction that we were not going to use those space needs, so you went ahead with your plans. So maybe you can update us where your at on that and how this may or may not fit together.
County Recorder Deborah Conger: We're planning to start in January, start the renovation in January. So that's where we're at.
Stutsman: Can you tell the Board what that will involve, the renovation, your plans with that. You had a floor plan drawn out. But if, and that's not available, if you could just kind of...
Conger: Basically what it involves is computerizing the office, so that we're going to be able to have monitors on the desks and people who can do real estate and vitals and licensing from any of the terminals or the PC's in the office. Right now the way it is, there's one terminal for licensing, there's another one for the real estate, and then we have our vitals monitors. But the 3 computers that we bought, so this will allow us to interchange those, and everything can work simultaneously on whatever needs to be done, which we can't do right now.
Lacina: I guess bottom line Deb, we need to ask for your help. What we did was we sat down and tried to look at the office space here. We're going to leave the HR function downstairs for now, but when we look at replacing Kim Benge that was in here and then adding one more person, we just don't have room. So what we're asking or proposing I guess is that we would utilize your office area and try to set up something for you on a temporary basis to get by either back behind your office in that glassed area, we could make some kind of an office, so you could have some privacy or something like that. But I guess we need your help. We have somebody coming on hopefully by the first of January and we really don't have room. I guess that's where we're coming from.
Jordahl: Temporary and confidential, I talked to Deb about this before. There's a question of security of records, of certain locked files, then doubly locked by being in that office. I'm not sure what you mean by temporary. I haven't been privy to these discussions, but I assume they're reasonable discussions. I'm just wondering how we deal with that question.
Lacina: Well, they would still be locked in files and we would just try to set up an area that would function as an office. I'm assuming there are times you're going to have to have personnel, well of course we have conference rooms within the building, but there's going to be times you're going to want a private quiet area to be able to go into. We would have to make adjustments some way to do that.
Bolkcom: Like our office. I don't want to degrade space. I don't want to have bull pen areas and I don't want to take Deborah's office away, which is a secure quite place for her to work and have areas that aren't secure and quiet. So I think if we're going to put a hole through that wall that we need to spend the money to create another secure office that's soundproof and has a door that closes and locks. The same can be said for this new space. If we're going to take Deborah's office, I don't like the idea of just having a big opening with more bull pen kind of space. That is hard to work in. That's all we have around here with the exception of Carol's office and it's terrible. So I don't want to create more space that's not very high quality. If we're going to do this lets have good secure soundproof space. I guess the other option would be with space is we've got a desk for Kim's replacement, Jo has a desk, Carol has a desk; if we can't find space that we don't have space for this new full-time secretarial position, that we don't hire it. We wait until we figure out the space thing, instead of hiring it and not have space.
Jordahl: The question of what the character of Deb's space would ultimately be ought to be seen in the perspective of how we would approach the question if it were not the Recorder's Office that we were talking about. If we were talking about the City Assessor's office, for example, would we similarly be saying that we were going to take the City Assessor's office. Or if it were Cletus's office downstairs, would we say we were going to take Cletus's office. I'm not sure, I mean I think we need to...
Stutsman: We did with Cletus for the HR person. That was...
Jordahl: Well, but it was space that wasn't being utilized.
Stutsman: Yes it was. He stored things in there.
Bolkcom: It was low stakes space though. It wasn't like an office.
Jordahl: I think if we're going to take Deb's office, we ought to give Deb an office. I guess that's...
Stutsman: I agree.
Jordahl: I think some sort of leaving her equal to the other department heads in terms of space for performing the function ought to be some sort of criterion for our project.
Lacina: That does raise the question of Deb, will you be there in the future? Do you plan on being there in the future. If someone is going to come in to replace you, then we need to consider office reconfiguration in that Recorder's Office.
Bolkcom: Well I assume unless somebody is collecting 8,500 signatures and is going to the ballot, we're going to have a Recorder. Whether it's Deborah or somebody else is irrelevant, I think.
Lacina: Well no, it's not. It really could make a big difference if somebody wants to go in and make some major changes. Deb is computerizing the office. It makes a difference where your drops go, it makes a difference on how somebody wants to deal with the confidentiality of the records. There are some things on the CD-ROM that may not be law be accessible to the public. So there may have to be secure areas and obviously now she has to go in and seal some of the books so that people can't just be browsing through and see adoptions or types of things. It does make a big difference in the office. So I think that's a question we need to know now, is if she's going to be in there, she needs to configure for that office. If not, I think we can save money, get by on a temporary basis. Maybe in the future we won't have to make a major investment. Whoever is in there may be on the floor working and not need that office, can use conference rooms. So it does make a difference.
Jordahl: We generally have offices for our department heads and elected officials. I can only... We operate on the assumption that Deborah is discharging the duties of this office as an occupant of this office equally to anyone else who would occupy the office. I don't think we predicate our decisions about the space allocation to department heads on their projected future plans. Those are always subject to change. Someone may decide to run for reelection or not. I don't think that's part of the question.
Lacina: But it will make a difference in how we expend the money. I could see budgeting for a renovation amount in the future in the next budget and plan for that. Again I think what we do, because of the time factor, needs to be temporary. Unless we're willing to go out and spend a lot of money now, but we are at risk of having to revamp it if there is a change.
Stutsman: Well and I think you run that risk with every elected official that has their office.
Lacina: Deb could come in and tell us how to configure our office. I'm not sure that we would feel comfortable about that, as opposed to whoever is in that office configuring that office.
Jordahl: No, that wouldn't be her proper role. I think the question of how she configures her office is her question.
Lacina: So my guess to the first point is are we in agreement that we need additional space or are we going to hire the employee and put them in the existing space. I guess that's probably the first step we need to decide.
Stutsman: Yes, that's what we need to decide is where we get... if we are going to go ahead and hire this person, where we're going to put them.
Lacina: Joe has a valid point. If we don't have room, we have a problem.
Bolkcom: We aren't going to get our money's worth.
Jordahl: So we've got a couple of questions here. We've got- Do we hire a person, do we have a place to put the person, and do we take Deb's office to put the person in and if we do...? That's like four questions. If we do, do we replace Deb's office with something comparable at our own expense. I think those all ought to be answered separately.
Stutsman: Then you have to temper all of this with our committee work on space needs. What timing as usual is not very good. Deb, you say you're ready to go ahead in January. What does that mean? Have you bought things, have you contracted with...
Conger: No.
Stutsman: OK.
Conger: No, but there is a timeline to start in order to sign a contract and get the shelves moved and new furniture moved in and the electrical and the telephones all set up.
Lacina: Do you think it would work to put a wall of some sort and door right behind where you are and you would have 2 windows looking out? I guess right now there's a microfiche reader of some sort and a bench. Would that area work as an office back there?
Conger: Yes, it would work.
Lacina: Would there be a better configuration that we're overlooking right now for a set-up for you that would be better?
Conger: We had talked about putting along the windows along the south wall, putting an office there, or putting it in the corner where all of the windows are. Either one of those would have worked. But it's going to be major construction and the office is going to be in an uproar if we started building walls and all of that kind of thing. It's better for me to stay where I am in terms of construction. I guess my concern is this whole idea of your going to take my office and then put me in a cubicle. That's going to be the exchange. I don't feel that that is appropriate at all and that it should be apples for apples. Not taking my space and then having abstractors and the public privy to any conversations that occur in my office because all I've got is a cubicle wall there. To me that's not appropriate.
Lacina: Well and I agree with you. We don't want to do that.
Stutsman: I think the space that we're talking about putting you in, you have in your plan put that for copy machines or whatever.
Conger: Yes, we've got our copiers and microfilms and the equipment in the office back in that corner. Then the work space is on the left side and the record storage is on the right side, so that the public area is not just... Right now everything is all mixed up and people are walking back and forth through the work area as well as the records. So we want to keep the records separated from the work area when we're dealing with money and security and sealed documents and that kind of thing. That's one of the motivations in doing this.
Stutsman: I just looked at the time. We've got our first interview for the HR person in 45 minutes. What does the Board want to do? Jonathan you said there were 4 questions to answer.
Jordahl: I've managed to write down 3 of them. I wonder what the 4th one was? I have hire a secretary, now or later, take Deb's office or not, and replace Deb's office with a comparable one or not. For me an additional question I did not mention earlier when I was outlining 4 of them was it would be putting the HR person into the space where Deb now is rather than downstairs because of the noise factor. Possibly putting either the Kim replacement or the other person down there. But that's an entirely separate question yet again. But Joe said we could postpone hiring the secretary, which would postpone this question. But postponing it probably isn't as good an idea as resolving it.
Bolkcom: Did we advertise for it yet, the secretary?
Stutsman: No. Carol we were going to get together to talk.
Bolkcom: We should wait until we get the space thing figured out before we advertise for it.
Peters: The only advertisement that's gone out is for the Deputy Administrative Assistant.
Bolkcom: Great, I figured that, but I just wanted to check.
Jordahl: Now I think as... This is where my 4th question regarding where the HR person goes is relevant to this discussion because I don't think that the space downstairs is adequate for that.
Stutsman: Jonathan we can't deal with that right now. I think we should...
Bolkcom: I think we should refer it to the space committee to solve this.
Duffy: I'm resigning.
Stutsman: Let's just... and the clerical person we're talking about hiring has to be in this office. The HR person for temporarily can be downstairs, but the clerical person has to be here.
Lacina: Our workload is going to be January, February, when we're working on that budget. That's when we're going to be taxed.
Bolkcom: So what about the City Assessor's Office. I mean we need a bigger solution here because it's cramped. That Human Resource person being separated from the phone system and their clerical support, I know we can't deal with that now, but I mean... It's a mess.
Stutsman: But I guess I was saying that the timing is always so horrible.
Bolkcom: I know it.
Stutsman: We should... We directed Dwight to do some plans for this building, to get us on that process.
Bolkcom: I don't know how much the City Assessor and County Assessor work together, so this would be big foot in the mouth here, but can the City Assessor be located at the city?
Duffy: I think we better before we discuss this...
Kistler: Can I interject something on that?
Bolkcom: Please.
Kistler: They need to work with the Auditor quite a bit, as well as access to the Recorder's.
Lacina: Yes.
Stutsman: Thank you Mark.
Bolkcom: Foot out of mouth.
Stutsman: Clarified through Mark. Thank you.
Jordahl: Temporary space, we do have space back here in the conference room. We could...
Stutsman: That's used.
Bolkcom: You can't set up an office back there.
Jordahl: Just...
Bolkcom: Unless you're going to...
Jordahl: We're talking temporary. I mean (inaudible) temporary (inaudible).
Bolkcom: We could remove the chairs and people could stand; we could have more people in this room too.
Jordahl: That's a good idea.
Lacina: I had said I would support going into the Recorder's office if everybody agreed and obviously we don't, so I guess at this point...
Stutsman: I don't know what the options are. There are no other options.
Jordahl: As I came into this meeting it was my understanding that the 4 of you had discussed this issue and had been concluded that the only way to respond to this would be to...
Stutsman: I want to clarify, one on one we had talked about it.
Jordahl: Had come to some sort of consensus let's say and is that consensus still in existence?
Lacina: Apparently not.
Duffy: What consensus is that?
Jordahl: That we needed to use Deb's office.
Bolkcom: I think the consensus was that we need to talk about what we're going to do. I don't think any solution was identified that people felt like was the right one. Because we hadn't talked to every... There's a lot of different players involved and we were just kind of kicking it around.
Jordahl: Well I think the time urgency here is 2 things. There's the budget coming up and there's Deb's remodeling coming up. So if we're going to have someone on board to help us with the budget process and if we're going to minimize the impact on Deb's remodeling plans, we need to make a decision sooner rather than later.
Bolkcom: Can we set up a special meeting got talk about this in the next couple of days.
Peters: I just had a brainstorm, but it's for another day.
Stutsman: What's that?
Peters: It's for another day.
Bolkcom: We meet Thursday night again, if you want to revisit this topic then or tomorrow.
Peters: Joe and Charlie have interviews at 1:00.
Duffy: Do you have any information, a packet.
Bolkcom: The interviews start at 1:00.
Stutsman: We need to take this discussion up at another time. Do you want to take it up Thursday at the informal?
Lacina: Are you busy Deb? Can you come back in?
Bolkcom: We're meeting Thursday night?
Jordahl: It's an evening meeting.
Conger: (Inaudible).
Stutsman: OK, Tuesday then. We'll just have to put it on Tuesday and continue discussion and thinking about how we're going to do this.
Conger: If I'm redoing my plan then that's going to put me back.
Stutsman: I know.
Conger: I don't like this.
Bolkcom: Who else should we be talking to, Dan Hudson or not.
Stutsman: Well, Mark just said they need to work with Auditor's Office.
Bolkcom: I'm not saying they need to leave the building, but there's the other contiguous space.
Jordahl: Right.
Duffy: Well, maybe they want some of our space.
Jordahl: Yes, we should talk to them about that.
Duffy: I don't think we should talk about peoples spaces unless they're here.
Bolkcom: That's my point. That's my point.
Duffy: Deb came in, but I wouldn't' be talking about that either.
Bolkcom: Sorry I brought it up. I'm just thinking that we'll talk about it.
Stutsman: OK, we'll continue this discussion on Tuesday and we will have the assessors come in and Deb.
Duffy: Do you think that's the way we're going to head out?
Stutsman: No Charlie, we're not going any direction. You just said that we need to include everybody.
Duffy: Well, if we're going to talk about it, then they should be here.
Bolkcom: I agree. We all agree on that Charlie.
Stutsman: That's what we're saying. OK, I guess we... Anything else that needs to be... We're not going to have reports this morning. Anything else that we need to talk about? Maybe just a brief overview for the Human Resource individual. You have questions in front of you. There's going to be 2 panels.
Peters: (Inaudible) as soon as you break you will each receive a packet (inaudible) with the suggested questions, there will be a set of questions for each applicant. You'll get the committee assignments and your room assignments. Now, since we started on this, Sally, Steve and Jonathan your first appointment has canceled. She has taken a position that was offered to her. (Inaudible) unfortunately Joe and Charlie you're on at 1:00, as is Deborah.
Lacina: We get lunch and you guys are stuck.
Stutsman: Thank you Carol for all of the work she's done on this. But it's a pretty sophisticated form of interviewing that we're doing, so both... all of the candidates will meet with both committees, they'll do a computer test and a written test. So they're going to be pretty busy.
Peters: I'm counting on a supervisor in each group to ask those 3 questions that are not on the (inaudible).
Stutsman: The scenarios.
Jordahl: I don't see those.
Peters: You will.
Stutsman: The packet will be (inaudible). We don't expect everybody to ask every one of these questions on here. These are just some guides to...
Duffy: (inaudible).
Lacina: Thanks for coming Deb.
Recessed at 12:25 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: INTERVIEWS FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCE ADMINISTRATOR POSITION
Reconvened at 2:02 p.m. as an interview team of Supervisors and department heads with Bolkcom and Duffy not present (they were participating on another interview team meeting concurrently and containing less than a quorum of Board members). Also present were: Public Health Director Graham Dameron, Board of Supervisors Administrative Assistant Carol Peters, and Recording Secretary Casie Parkins.
Motion by Lacina, second by Jordahl, to enter into Executive Session at 2:02 p.m. to interview Patrick Mulhern under section 21.5(1.i), Code of Iowa, "to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation and that individual requests a closed session." Roll call: aye: Jordahl, Lacina, Stutsman; not present: Bolkcom, Duffy.
Motion by Lacina, second by Jordahl, to leave Executive Session at 3:01 p.m. Roll call: aye: Jordahl, Lacina, Stutsman; not present: Bolkcom, Duffy.
Recessed at 3:01 p.m. reconvened at 3:11 p.m.
Motion by Lacina, second by Jordahl, to enter into Executive Session at 3:11 p.m. to interview Laurie Scharmek under section 21.5(1.i), Code of Iowa, "to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation and that individual requests a closed session." Roll call: aye: Jordahl, Lacina, Stutsman; not present: Bolkcom, Duffy.
Motion by Lacina, second by Jordahl, to leave Executive Session at 4:15 p.m. Roll call: aye: Jordahl, Lacina, Stutsman; not present: Bolkcom, Duffy.
Recessed at 4:15 p.m.; reconvened at 4:45 p.m. with all
Supervisors present.
WORK SESSION WITH STATE LEGISLATORS ON LEGISLATIVE ISSUES.
Legislators present were: Senator Robert Dvorsky, Senator Mary
Neuhauser, Representative Ro Foege, Representative Mary Mascher,
and Representative Richard Myers.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUVENILE DETENTION COSTS
Stutsman asked the Legislators to look into additional funding for juvenile detention and probation services. Johnson County detentions costs have skyrocketed, and the County will need to amend the budget. Brandon Beaudry of the Juvenile Court Office said costs had increased from $153,000 in FY96 to $215,000 in FY97 and a projected $260,000 in FY98. Court statistics indicated the number of amendments in delinquency petitions has increased, and Beaudry believes more juveniles are committing repeat offenses while under Juvenile Court jurisdiction. Detention is now being used as a sanction for probationary violations, and for children awaiting placement in a residential treatment facility or due to decertification from the Mental Health Institute, but no additional funding was provided to counties. Funding for residential treatment has been decreased in the past 5 years; though day treatment has taken up some of the slack, the cuts were still too deep. The insufficient funding means that many children are in detention rather than getting the treatment they need in a residential facility.
Foege asked if the fee bill to help counties pick up the slack in detention costs was working. Beaudry said $62,000 had been generated in the first 3 months of FY98, far short of the projected $3 million a year. Dvorsky said Governor Branstad had originally budgeted $10 million to assist counties in juvenile justice, but at the end of the Legislative session the amount was only $3 million. Some of this only replaced money that was removed from other parts of the juvenile justice budget; if anything, it kept counties at the same level as opposed to an increase. Stutsman said the County had budgeted $200,000 for juvenile detention, and the projected $60,000 shortfall would have to come out of the General Fund. This did not even include shelter care. The real cost is to children who are in detention rather than receiving appropriate services.
Myers asked how long the average child in Johnson County stays
in detention; Beaudry said 14 days. Myers said 7 years ago, it
was 1 day.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: IOWA COMMUNICATION NETWORK (ICN)
Bolkcom said the counties are interested in being connected to
the ICN. Dvorsky said he agreed, but there were not enough votes
in the Senate to pass it; last session there were only 18 or 19
Senators in favor. Myers said four years ago, there were 82
Representatives in favor of connecting counties to the ICN.
Dvorsky said he was serving on an interim committee that was
looking at privatizing the ICN, and the counties may want some
input.
TREASURER CLETUS REDLINGER: PREPARATION OF TAX BILLS UNDER TAX BILL 726
Redlinger said samples of tax statements prepared under Tax Bill 726 were cluttered and difficult to read. Implementation of the bill by July 1, 1998 would force Johnson County to destroy 100,000 tax statements and 20,000 envelopes. Information Services had advised Redlinger that purchase of the necessary high-speed laser printer would cost $8,000 to $25,000, in addition to considerable programmer time. Redlinger noted that though the bill had been passed, it contained no penalty provisions. He felt it would be better to use up all the old statements before implementation. Redlinger suggested making the requirement voluntary, as with partial payments.
Myers said it would cost Polk County close to $1 million to
implement File 726. He said the bill was much worse when first
proposed, and the final bill was a convoluted compromise that was
needed to get Governor Branstad to sign the bill, which
originally involved other things to let taxpayers know where
their tax dollars are going. It will likely need to be revisited.
Neuhauser said the implementation date for the tax bill
information provisions was July 1, 2001, and the tax statement
study committee may come up with something by that time. Dvorsky
said the Johnson County tax statement was much clearer than the
samples prepared under the provisions of 726.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH GRAHAM DAMERON: FUNDING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING AND FOOD SAFETY
Dameron said funding for public health nursing has remained flat or been reduced, while costs and demand have increased. He said he would like to see additional funding for health departments in the public health nursing area, for items such as home visits, immunization audits, and communicable disease follow-up.
Dameron urged the Legislators to enact the 1997 FDA Food Code,
which has not been updated since 1976, and indicated this would
require additional inspections. He noted that fees for inspecting
food service and restaurant inspections have not increased since
1979. He presented a table comparing the 0% increase in food
inspection fees to increases in prices at McDonalds since 1979
(ranging from 74 to 139%).
COUNTY ASSESSOR JERRY MUSSER: AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION
Musser said there is contention when classifying land as residential vs. agricultural. When he sees people buy 40 acres of poor land and build an expensive house on it, he has difficulty believing that the property owner is really a farmer. The Association of Assessors is reviewing a proposal to assess one building site acre of land as residential and the rest of a lot as agricultural, in order to get a better overall assessment of fair market value and would also reduce disputes. No bill has been drafted yet, but the issue may well come up as a priority for assessors.
Mascher asked if each individual assessor was assessing such properties on a case by case basis; Musser said that was correct. His guideline is the primary use of the tract, but this is not consistently applied from county to county. Under present law, the entire property has to be classified either residential or agricultural.
Myers said he would like to see more consistency throughout the state, and a more detailed version of the proposal could have merit.
Musser also noted the continued practice of filing condominium declarations for apartment buildings in order to take advantage of the residential rollback.
Dvorsky left the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
Mosher said the move toward more fee for service has made it necessary for Johnson County to bill other counties for clients who have legal settlement elsewhere. Collection of these bills is difficult and complex, and since Johnson County is committed to helping these clients, Johnson County taxpayers often end up paying for services that are not provided by other counties. Under the previous Block Grant system, the inter-county issues did not arise. Myers asked how significant the problem is; Mosher said it was too early in the fiscal year to make an accurate estimate. Myers said the allowable growth rate numbers defy a rationale for asking for more money. Myers asked about litigation against non-paying counties and Mosher said there may not be a clear-cut case because some clients may not be covered by individual county plans. Myers said he had heard there was a lot of similarity in the mental health plans of different counties. Mosher said in fact there was a lot of difference.
Mosher said a different allowable growth formula needs to be worked out. Johnson County has an 11 1/2 to 12% a year net increase in consumers. Though managed care will save some money, a 2.89% allowable growth rate will not be enough to keep up with the demand. Myers said he does not expect a sustainable allowable growth formula will pass in the 1998 Legislative session. Mosher noted that some counties are not spending all their money. Myers agreed and said it was difficult to argue for the increase in the legislature when there was money going unspent. Mascher asked if the counties that were not spending money were the same ones that did not provide many services. Mosher said this was often true, and some counties were concerned that there may be demand for new levels of services.
Myers said bills had been proposed in the 1997 session to
create an state indemnity fund to address the legal settlement
issue. This would allow the state budget to pay for cases where
legal settlement was in question. Though the bills had never
gotten out of the Local Government Committee, the idea had
attracted bipartisan support. Neuhauser said this was a very
important issue for Johnson County, but to most counties it was
not only not important, they would rather keep the present
system. Mosher said ISAC favored keeping the present system.
Mascher said a disproportionate number of rural legislators were
chairing the relevant committees, and they see no reason to
change.
INTERIM SEATS DIRECTOR BURNELL CHADEK: STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FUNDING
Chadek urged the Legislators to maintain the current State Transit Assistance structure as dedicated funding from the Road Use Tax Fund, rather than making it contingent on annual request from the General Fund. Dedicated funding allows for year-to-year consistency and more effective planning.
Chadek said capital funding for replacement vehicles in public transit will face an increasing budget shortfall in upcoming years. In Region 10, out of 15 vehicles that need replacement in FY99, only 2 were funded. In Johnson County, there are two vehicles that need replacement, but the replacement had to be postponed.
Myers asked what the replacement costs are and Chadek said
about $43,000 for each SEATS vehicle with the local match being
about $8,500. Neuhauser asked how often vehicles are replaced.
Chadek said replacement is scheduled at 100,000 miles; several
Johnson County vehicles were at 150,000 miles. If the problem
goes unchecked for more than a couple years, the result will be a
broken-down fleet.
HUMAN SERVICES AREA ADMINISTRATOR CHERYL WHITNEY: DECATEGORIZATION
Whitney presented a list of agencies funded with
decategorization dollars and showed how the expenditures had
grown over the past 4 years. In FY94 the carryover fund was
$700,000; in FY97 the carryover was down to $271,000. The
decategorization budget has been cut to $450,000, and even this
level cannot be maintained without additional funding. Core
service costs and demand have both increased. Services such as
foster care placement for children in imminent danger are both
essential and difficult to control. Whitney anticipates demand to
continue to grow as Johnson County grows.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: UTILITY PROPERTY TAX
Lacina said utility property taxes totaled $3,164,000 to government entities in Johnson County, or 4% of total revenues. Counties and utilities agree that the present formula basing 90% of the property tax on total revenue and the remaining 10% on real property value is cumbersome. However, $156,000 is a very small amount for bond issues in a state with 99 counties, 377 school districts, and other entities. He said more information was needed on total dollars devoted statewide for bond issues.
Lacina added that the proposed limit of a 2% increase or decrease on property taxes could shift the tax burden off utilities and onto all other classes of property. The increase/decrease range should be tied to a more realistic index such as the Consumer Price Index or state growth rate He also noted that Iowa utilities are producing at 60% of capacity and yet have some of the lowest rates in the nation; if the tax increase limit is enacted it would be a windfall for utilities who could then increase production and sell out-of-state. This could also lead to increased prices and smaller power supplies to small communities. Lacina said if utilities truly are at a disadvantage in interstate business, this was an economic development issue and not something that should be a burden on other property taxpayers.
Myers said sooner or later, wholesaling of electricity would come to Iowa. He agreed that the 2% figure has problems and said there should be some sort of review commission. There needs to be a way to protect smaller users and yet keep out of state companies from taking over larger Iowa customers. He said another concern about out-of-state utility ownership was prompt service and repair. He would prefer staying with the regulated monopoly of utilities, but predicted it would not stay that way.
Lacina said utilities are seeking long-term contracts to get through the deregulation period. The County is discussing forming a consortium with other area governments in order to have a stronger negotiating position. Myers said the investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, and rural electric cooperatives were all working together on proposed legislation. Bolkcom said Massachusetts has passed legislation allowing local governments to aggregate their users so utilities cannot come in and pick off only the big users.
Neuhauser said the Department of Economic Development needs to
get involved with this issue. Any bill will be either a cost
shift to other taxpayers or a reduction in the tax base. The only
benefit would be if it would attract more investment in the
state, and that was not likely as Iowa was more likely to ship
power out of state.
JCCOG HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATOR LINDA SEVERSON: CHILDREN AT HOME PILOT PROJECT
Severson said Johnson County had been a pilot site for Children at Home, a program designed to provide assistance for families with children with disabilities. The program helps provide items that make it easier to keep these children at home such as construction of ramps, widening doors, fencing to improve safety. Severson said the program was very effective at a low cost. She noted it was up for review in the next Legislative session and recommended it be continued.
Myers asked why the program had paid for tae kwon do lessons. Severson said the child in question was very energetic and was sometimes aggressive; tae kwon do was a way to channel that aggressive energy into a more appropriate activity. Requests were reviewed by a local group consisting of half professionals and half consumers or family members.
Foege said the whole children's services area could go through incredible changes in the near future, some of which may be frightening, and close oversight and local input will be needed.
Mascher said most items covered by Children at Home seemed to
be equipment and classes, and asked if parenting classes,
support, and respite were covered. Severson said respite was
available through other programs. Most items under Children at
Home were one-time purchases or limited in time. The only item
the local group has decided cannot be covered is purchase of
computers, though equipment to adapt a computer for use by a
disabled child would be acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD MYERS: POSSIBLE UPCOMING LEGISLATION ON PROPERTY TAXES AND IMPACT FEES
Myers said the Tax Committee may decouple residential property tax assessments from farmland, and freeze residential assessment rollbacks. There may also be an examination of tax-exempt properties entering into fee-for-service arrangements with local governments. The fire protection agreement between the University of Iowa and the City of Iowa City is a good example of such an arrangement. Churches would be excluded from this consideration.
Recessed at 5:52 p.m.; reconvened on December 10, 1997 at
12:20 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: REVIEW OF INTERVIEWS FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCE ADMINISTRATOR POSITION
Motion by Lacina, second by Jordahl, to enter into Executive Session at 12:20 p.m. to discuss candidates interviewed in executive session for the position of Human Resource Administrator under section 21.5(1.i), Code of Iowa, "to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation and that individual requests a closed session." Roll call: aye: Duffy, Jordahl, Lacina; absent: Bolkcom, Stutsman.
Motion by Duffy, second by Jordahl, to leave Executive Session at 12:50 p.m. Roll call: aye: Duffy, Jordahl, Lacina; absent: Bolkcom, Stutsman.
Recessed at 12:50 p.m.; reconvened on December 11, 1997 at 8:45 p.m. with all Board members present.
Stutsman: Inquiries and reports from the public.
Reports and inquiries from Board of Supervisors.
REPORT (DUFFY): SENIOR DINING NEEDING APPLICANTS.
Duffy: I'd like to talk about the Congregate Meal
Program. Senior Dining needs some help running the program, the
cooks and dishwashers that help with the program. It seems like
if you drive around the city you'll see help wanted in a lot
of these places that have fast foods and that, so it's
getting harder to really get some help. If anybody would like to
apply, you would get paid for this. Call up the Senior Center and
ask for Mike Foster.
Stutsman: Steve, do you have anything?
Lacina: Just very quickly, the extension service has a new program now called Money 2000 By 2000. What you do is you put your credit card in these little folders and you keep track of how much you spend. With their support, you'll end up with $2000 a year. By the year 2000, you'll have 4. It's a good program for anybody at the Extension Service, also their putting on the computer technology fair down at the fairgrounds for the farm community on December 12th to 13th. Had a JCCOG meeting. We did discuss forming a consortium to go out and bid for electrical power. It was decided that we would do a little research first. It appears the school district may have received some favorable rates and instead of going out forming some consortium, we may just sit down with the local vendors and have a discussion with them. But we are going to research that and see. The rest of the reports can wait. Thank you.
Stutsman: Jonathan do you have anything tonight?
REPORT (JORDAHL):
INTERVIEWING CANDIDATES FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCE POSITION
Jordahl: Nothing in particular.
Stutsman: OK.
Jordahl: I just thought people would be heartened to know that we have been interviewing for the HR position. We may want to go into more detail on that.
Stutsman: Joe?
Bolkcom: Busy, busy, busy.
Stutsman: Yes.
Bolkcom: Late hour. I hold my report.
REPORT
(STUTSMAN): ATTENDED UNITED WAY JOINT HEARING
Stutsman: Incredible week. I just wanted to report that I went to the United Way Joint hearings last night and they gave a report on the United Way Campaign and they're past the million dollar mark and Johnson County employees are doing very well. We reached 70 percent of the goal that they had put out for Johnson County employees. We are pleased with that. Report from the County Attorney?
White: No report.
Stutsman: OK. Is there anything else? If not, we are adjourned.
Adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Parkins, Mark Kistler, and Courtney Bork, Recording Secretaries