MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DECEMBER 16, 17 AND 18, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Senior Center Commission Member M. Kathryn Wallace: Senior Center Update
Reports (Jordahl): Attended Social Welfare Board Meeting
Board of Supervisors and Pat Langenberg: Space Needs for New Staff
Work Session with Johnson County Elected Officials
Work Session: Space Needs In The Administration Building
Interviews for Human Resource Position: Cheryl Wharton, Carleton Wiese
Report (Bolkcom): Attended the East Central Iowa Council of Governments Budget and ISTEA Meetings
Report (Lacina): Need To Have Reports To The Board From Funded Agencies For Public Record
Report (Lacina): Requests to Cancel Meeting Christmas Week
Executive Session: Discussion Of Interviews For Seats Director
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration
Building at 9:01 a.m. Members present were: Joseph Bolkcom,
Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally
Stutsman.
Stutsman: I call the meeting for the Johnson County
Board of Supervisors for December 16, 1997 to order. Review of
the formal minutes of December 11. I guess I looked through them
and they look fine. I don't have any comments or
corrections, so we'll put those on for action on Thursday.
Business from Dr. Craig Mosher, Director of Mental
Health/Developmental Disabilities Services for Johnson County,
this is concerning the Department of Mental Health/Developmental
Disabilities Annual Report. Morning, Craig.
Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Craig Mosher: Good morning. All of you should have gotten a copy of this in the mailing for the planning council meeting.
Stutsman: OK.
Mosher: I brought a few extra if anybody hasn't got it with them.
Lacina: Are you going to refer to it?
Mosher: Yes.
Lacina: OK. Then I better have that (inaudible) on my desk.
Mosher: I've got an extra copy that you don't need.
Stutsman: I've don't need one.
Bolkcom: I'll take one for now and give it back to you when I'm done (inaudible).
Mosher: and give it back to me when you're done.
Lacina: Oh, it's in our packet.
Jordahl: It's just the executive summary, that top sheet is, Steven, there, but the rest of it is not there.
Lacina: OK. Thank you. Thanks, Jon.
Jordahl: I cheated, he told me yesterday.
Mosher: I'd like to start just by talking briefly about 6 people. Anna's been at Glenwood for a number of years and was in a System's Residence for awhile and in their sheltered work program and now she's living at home with her father. She's 48. She has severe mental retardation. I'm changing names and stuff to discuss people. She gets some help from the Visiting Nurses Association and some in-home health care. She goes out to the Reach-for-Your-Potential Day Program with S.E.A.T.S. Transportation. One concern there is that her father has got some health problems and he's not going be able to care for her forever, so we are beginning to look at longer term placement for her down the road. Joe has been in and out of the Mental Health Institute at Independence. He was at Chatham Oaks for awhile, then he was at the Hillcrest Residence and at the boarding house. He's now doing much better, as a matter of fact, because he's on Chloserile, which is a new schizophrenia medication. That really makes a big difference. There are several actually, there are 3 new schizophrenia meds now that are really helping people a lot. He goes to day treatment in the club house at the Mental Health Center and he's working for the railroad, washing locomotives through Goodwill's Threshold Vocational Program. He's 31. Bill is 26. He's living in an apartment with some Life Skills Support Services who help him with activities of daily living, budgeting, things like that. He's classified as Developmentally Disabled because of Cerebral Palsy; he also suffers from depression and gets some medication for that. He's in the process of planning a part-time work project through Goodwill. Jenny is in the third grade in the Iowa City Schools. She is living at home with her parents and a couple of brothers and sisters. She has mental retardation. She requires a feeding tube and so she gets her after-school program at Handi-Care where they have some nursing assistance available and so forth. She gets a lot of service through the school and that, and the use the Respite Care Service from the ARC as well when they go out or are gone for a couple of days. Jenny can get the care she needs. Jim was injured a couple of years ago in a car accident. He went to rehab in Des Moines. He's now back in Iowa City, looking to start some employment prospects, those are still a little ways in the future, but it looks like he's going to be able to work at least part-time. How that rehab is going to all work out we don't know. Some of those cases where a person has a brain injury take a long time to really sort out. Jean is a person who lives with her family. She has 3 children and her husband. They live and work here in Iowa City. She works part-time for a local agency. She suffers from depression and she gets medication and their getting some family therapy help from the Mental Health Center and really keeping their family together pretty well. She uses a lot of sick time because her illness intrudes sometimes, but she's really able to work on more than a half-time basis and has been pretty successful at it. These are just some of the people that all these figures and charts and graphs are about. I wanted to give you some flavor for the kinds of folks that are involved in this. We are going to talk this morning about a lot of pretty dry things and I just want us to remember that these really are sort of flesh and blood people whose lives are made very different by the fact that these services are provided. The annual report covers FY97 which ended last June, so we're really talking about that past year which was the first year of the move towards the CPC's and the more managing process. It was a year when we planned the transition to fee-for-service and worked out some contracts with Chatham Oaks and the Mental Health Center and the ARC, and so forth. That transition is going forward today. We did an extensive planning process, as you remember, a year ago last fall. We did a major needs assessment and gathered some reasonably good research numbers, I think, on what needs were in the community and had an extensive process of community input in that plan. We've seen a major jump, as you know, in caseloads. If you'll look at figure 2, which is page 18, you'll see the chart, like some that you've seen before, of how the numbers have increased over the... this is almost a two year period on this chart. It starts in October of '95, so it's got part of Fiscal '96 up until July of '96 and then Fiscal '97. We're seeing about and eleven and a half to twelve percent increase a year. These are children that turn adults, these are new people moving to Iowa City. As our population grows, we're going to see more people, and some of them are people who haven't gotten service before that have been newly identified, that weren't aware of the services, and so forth. That's been a fairly steady increase, and as you know, we had a jump in July and August when we switched to fee-for-service, but it's back to that basic eleven twelve percent rate at this point. As you know we added two new positions last year to provide for these people and two new ones this year to help with that big surge that we had in July and August. These are paid for, as you remember, by Case Management Medicaid Dollars reimbursing the Case Management Service and out of our existing budget. It's not new money. If you look back a page, at page 17, figure one gives you a rough breakdown of the way the dollars are spent by disability group, so that persons with mental retardation get about 40 percent of the dollars, chronic mental illness persons get about 36 percent, and then about 7 or 8 percent for persons with DD and who get mental health counseling services and who get the case management social work service from our office. BI is only about one percent. Then in terms of budget things, if you look at figure 3 on page 19, you've seen some of these before, so I'll just kind of go over them quickly and you can come back with questions, if you like, later. Those first three columns on the expense chart on page 19 are in-patient, the residential services are about 38 percent of the budget. Then the next largest group is the vocational at about 15 percent, and then there are 3 or 4 of them that are about 8 percent, the CSALA supported apartments service, the case management of social work and out-patient psychotherapy and the HCBS MR waiver. So you can get a rough idea of how the expenses are breaking down. Residential is still the most expensive service, as you would expect, and takes the biggest chunk of budget. Then in terms of, let's see, if we go over to figure 4, on page 20, next page.
Jordahl: Craig, do we have, is anybody here in the audience, do they already have a copy of this that wants one?
Mosher: Were there more people that came in? Did you want one also?
Jordahl: OK. Thanks. Sorry to interrupt.
Mosher: On the next page you'll see the revenues. About half of the 7.6 million budget for last year came from County property tax dollars, about 48 percent. So we are still primarily dependent on county property tax dollars to fund these programs. Then you can see there was State property tax relief money, local purchase, State and Federal, Community Service Allocation, which is State, were the other major contributors to the budget. Figure 5 on the next page is a more detailed breakdown of the budget and, for time reasons, I don't think I'll go through that point by point. Something we should note, if you go all the way over to page 24 to the bottom line on the Net Expenditure. It shows that we ended the year about $42,000 ahead and we've learned since then that this was all done on a cash basis. We basically worked on a cash accounting basis and we came out very close to budget on that basis, but the State requires that we do an accrual after the year closes out and so they then charge back to Fiscal '97 things that we paid in July and August of this year, but that were actually for the previous year, which is just a standard accounting practice. But that's going to put us over and we're actually going to be a little over 50,000 dollars overspent coming into this present fiscal year. We are going to have to absorb that overage and one of our goals for this year is to plan that end of the year process so that we won't go over next year. We simply didn't account in our planning for the accrual that was going to happen. We're not used to doing that, so we just didn't, because the reports we get from the Auditor are on a cash basis and they can't do the accrual because they don't know what the bills are yet. We just need to estimate that in May and June, what we think those accruals are going to run and then allow for that so that we'll end the year in balance...
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Mosher: This year, but ...
Lacina: But still remains you... other than the fact of overriding the budgeted expenditures you came within six tenths of one percent.
Mosher: Right.
Lacina: Which on a six million dollar budget is amazing. I think.
Stutsman: Yes.
Mosher: Well.
Lacina: That's very good.
Mosher: Yes.
Lacina: When people think 50,000 dollars, but off of that 6 million dollar budget that's really close.
Bolkcom: It's real close.
Mosher: Yes, that's real close, yes.
Stutsman: So, Craig, you talk about absorbing that, of course the 42... will it go into next year's budget, the rest of the 50,000? Is that how? How are you going to ...?
Mosher: Well, we need to pay out of this years budget, a little over 50,000 that was part of that accrual. It was actually closer to 90, but the 42 takes part of it.
Stutsman: Oh, I see.
Mosher: Covers part of it. We were above, we were ahead by 42 at the end of the year and now we're behind by about 50. So there's a little over 90 total.
Stutsman: OK.
Mosher: That was accrued back into last year's budget that we didn't plan for because we hadn't worked that way before. This is a part of the switch-over, part of the new year for us. We will account for that and allow for that when we get to the end of this year.
Stutsman: OK.
Mosher: So we'll end up in balance. As you know, we can't overspend the budget.
Lacina: The 50 probably was paid in '98 it's just the accrual system, it's almost a book keeping...
Mosher: Right.
Lacina: Will show the actual expense in '98
Mosher: But it will come out of this year's budget.
Lacina: '98.
Mosher: That's 50 we can't spend this year, but you're right, they were actually paid in July and August.
Lacina: That's still very close. You can be commended on that. That's good.
Mosher: Thank you. Sally Murray does a lot of that and she does a good job.
Duffy: Craig, I like the way this is put together, especially on pages 19 and 20.
Mosher: OK.
Duffy: When people, taxpayers, want to know where the money is going, it's a very simple document and very easy to read. I wish other budgets would kind of follow something like this.
Mosher: Well, thanks. I always find charts easier to read than...
Stutsman: It's so helpful to have an end of the year report on (inaudible)
Mosher: OK
Stutsman: I'm glad that that's being done.
Mosher: Good.
Stutsman: You're going over this at the Planning Council tonight, too.
Mosher: Yes, I'll talk about it there, too.
Lacina: Three things as I went through it that I noticed, well, 4. One is your table of contents is off. The MIS is on page 7 instead of 6.
Mosher: Oops.
Lacina: In looking at the MIS, and I'm sure just in your word processing it shifted one.
Mosher: OK.
Lacina: Well, the State wants this management information system, as they want this computer technology in all different departments, they still can't pull it off themselves, can they? They are not able to generate the ...
Mosher: No.
Lacina: We're spending a lot time and energy, and once again, we pass it on. Do they have a timetable of when they think they'll be able to get something back to us on this?
Mosher: Well, we're expecting a new version, Version 2.5 of this CoMIS database program. It's supposed to be out here this month and that's going to help. The last 2 pages are sort of an embarrassment because the numbers really aren't very good and I'd hoped we would have better numbers by now; we simply don't. Part of it is that the database system simply doesn't quite do it all yet. Part of it is that there was a large number of people that were funded through block grants last year at the Mental Health Center and Chatham Oaks and different places. There are 5 different agencies that we had to go back to those agencies and say how many people did you serve so we can add them into these tables. They weren't in the system last year because they were block grant funded. We didn't have individual data on all those persons that got that kind of funding. So we had to add those numbers in by hand. That will be fixed this year because all of those people will be in the database. That will help. The State is interested in getting unduplicated counts, so an individual doesn't get counted twice if they get two different services. That's very difficult to do, it turns out. These numbers illustrate the difficulty because on page 25, if you look, for example at, take out-patient psychiatry, about a third of the way down, 41305. If you look over at the right hand column, those numbers are an unduplicated count. We know that there are only 1306 individuals who got out-patient psychiatry. If you look at the totals in the columns, those are a duplicated count because a single individual might have gotten out-patient psychiatry, supported employment, medication and psychotherapy. So they might turn up 4 times in that 1166 or one of those numbers at the bottom. It's not a simple matter to get an unduplicated count and we're going to work on that for this year and try to get better numbers. I think the state will help when they get their software together, that'll help, too.
Lacina: That kind of leads me to my second question. With the case loads increasing...
Mosher: Uh-huh.
Lacina: A lot of individuals have multiple disabilities, as opposed to being specific in one area. Do you think that there is a shifting of some individuals off of one program and to you. So bottom line, for the total social services costs, there might be the same dollars allocated, there obviously are more because we do have new people coming in, but do you see some shifting from programs to you that were funded other ways?
Mosher: Well, I'm not aware of much of that at this point. Are you thinking of particular examples where that might be happening?
Lacina: No, just if you had a sense (inaudible)
Mosher: Yes, I'm not real concerned about that.
Lacina: Then my final point was on figure 3, on the back, on page 24 or 5. The graph, oh-no, it's not. It's on page 19. When we look at the most expensive providers of service, it would be helpful to me if we could see the number of clients served. So, like in the case of Chatham Oaks at one million three.
Mosher: OK.
Lacina: If they are serving 80 and the next in line is other residential. Just to get a general head count.
Mosher: OK. Sort of a cost per individual.
Lacina: Yes.
Jordahl: Yes.
Lacina: I think that would help us. Good report.
Stutsman: You kind of went through that breakdown, the percentage that were in residential treatment. I would like a copy of that percentage of the budget that goes to vocational services (inaudible)
Mosher: OK. Those numbers weren't on here.
Stutsman: Right. I thought those ...
Mosher: I just sort of sketched those in on the copy, but ...
Mosher: Yes.
Jordahl: In terms of the numbers, where there may be some sort of calculated number like patient days. So it wouldn't be just number of individuals served, but how many ...
Lacina: Units of service.
Jordahl: Units of service were delivered, yes.
Lacina: True, because someone could be in one day and you would ...
Jordahl: It would still be a person.
Lacina: (Inaudible) can't anticipate they be in for a year where (inaudible)
Stutsman: Do we have just a couple more comments, we've got a long agenda this morning. We are going to review this again this afternoon.
Bolkcom: Just 2 quick things. The survey of providers seems to be pretty good. Out of 17 we asked how were we doing (inaudible), 6 responded. It would be great to see that increase if we plan to do that again. Also to note, only one person appealed a decision, one person was essentially turned away from getting services because they didn't qualify. It's good to see that even though we're managing these dollars differently, we're still being able to provide services to folks.
Mosher: OK. Let me just make a few quick comments about the future.
Stutsman: OK, good.
Mosher: Which is really this year. As I said, the CoMIS database is a priority for this year and also working on quality assurance. I'd like to get some of the agencies using a continuous quality improvement model, like a total quality management kind of thing that businesses have used. We are working on that; we have a committee on that now.
Lacina: Through the Woods Center?
Mosher: Pardon?
Lacina: Who is the lead agency that you're trying to use on that?
Mosher: Well, we're not using any consultants at this point. We probably are going to. We're going to want to do some training and so forth. Do you have a suggestion on that?
Lacina: Kirkwood has a spin-off, the Woods Center, up there. Sally was involved in some of the things with Cedar Rapids and Linn County, so you might want to make a call.
Mosher: OK.
Lacina: I think that would be very inexpensive, if they charge at all.
Mosher: Great.
Stutsman: I can give you that phone number of who to contact.
Mosher: OK. I do think caseloads are going to continue to rise, that's a given. The allowable growth formula, as you know, is going to be a legislative issue this year and we're hoping for something like the fiscal work group's proposal on that. We are planning to do a new apartment building for persons with mental illness and will be issuing an RFP here shortly this month to get responses from agencies on who would be doing that. We're beginning to have some meetings to move towards a regional collaboration among some of the major providers, including the hospital, Mental Health Center, Goodwill, Hillcrest, including MECCA, to begin to position themselves so that they might be able to bid on a sub-capitated contract for health care. I think the day is coming when that is going to happen and the agencies are beginning to do some planning for that. I'm involved in that as well. We may see the day when we will be able to sit down at one table and try to mesh the things that the County funds with the things that Medicaid and some of the other funding sources fund. Finally, the Chatham Oaks lease, I talked to Bill Sueppel about that. As you know, we've been expecting them to sign it any month now. They haven't, but Bill Sueppel said he would get it signed. He's kind of back up to speed on it again. I got those documents to him, so I hope we will get that before the end of the year.
Stutsman: OK.
Lacina: At some point, we'll probably want you to make some recommendations to us about the problem with collections for the providers.
Mosher: Yes.
Lacina: From other counties.
Mosher: On the Mental Health Center, particularly.
Lacina: (inaudible) know that we've go a good sense of how to deal with that.
Stutsman: I think, Craig, you need to keep us informed where the legislature is at on this allowable growth thing. As Dick Myers pointed out that night that there is a lot of differences between different counties in the state. Where we really need that allowable growth, a small rural county doesn't need it and in the legislature, when they look at the whole state, needs to be informed where we're at and make some kind of adjustments.
Mosher: Yes, and that makes this a tough issue.
Stutsman: It does.
Mosher: There are real differences between some of the smaller counties and the magnet counties like Johnson and Scott and Linn.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Mosher: Any questions?
Duffy: One other thing, I'm glad folks with brain injury in this county can be included in, which we really didn't have to do. I always thought it should be a State law.
Mosher: Uh-huh.
Duffy: When you have a brain injury, it takes time. It's not like breaking an arm.
Mosher: That's right.
Duffy: The more complicated you body system is, I heard a doctor talk about this, that's what takes the longest.
Mosher: You bet.
Duffy: Good report.
Stutsman: Thank you, Craig.
Mosher: Thank you. I will just hand you a copy, in case you don't make it this afternoon, of the draft plan.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: I've got one. Thanks.
Jordahl: Probably, I got one of those yesterday.
Stutsman: Thank you again.
Stutsman: Business from Lori Schnoor, Soil and Water Conservationist for Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District. This is an update on the conservationist position. Morning, Lori.
Lori Schnoor: : Good morning.
Bolkcom: Good morning.
Jordahl: Good morning.
Stutsman: This new position that the Board has funded this past year, so we're anxious to hear how things are going.
Schnoor: Yes, I typed up a report.
Bolkcom: Thank you.
Schnoor: When you'd get a chance to look at that, it would be great.
Stutsman: Thank you.
Lacina: Thank you.
Duffy: Thank you, Lori.
Schnoor: This morning I guess I just wanted to give you that report and let you know that everything is going very well. Also, I would like to offer you the opportunity for you to give me any input on any areas you would like me to concentrate in or also feel free to call me at the office if you'd like to talk one-on-one, also.
Lacina: You provide a number of services to the County in terms of assisting us in the past with subdivisions and layout conservation plans and advice. I want to commend you on that as well as your close working relationship with our Zoning Department.
Schnoor: Thank you.
Bolkcom: Looks great. A lot of things happening here. So would we anticipate then that a lot of the same kinds of things will basically be happening in terms of the relationship between farm... spending time with members of the farm community as well as some of the suburban, I guess, development kind of questions.
Schnoor: Right. Right now I've been concentrating a lot on the technical work with land owners out on the farm because there seems to be quite a demand for that. We have a technician, he's only part-time here, he works in another county, so he has quite a load. I've been trying to take off some of that.
Bolkcom: Great.
Schnoor: Hopefully, soon, I'll be getting more into the suburban and urban if that's the area that you would like to see me kind of concentrating in also.
Lacina: Do you think that the State or Fed would ever entertain the idea of growing rare seeds or endangered species on some of the CRP ground?
Schnoor: Well, I think that wild life enhancement is one of the major components of CRP.
Lacina: The dilemma is a lack of harvesting it, though.
Schnoor: Yes, well...
Lacina: The idea is just to propagate the seed some way to multiply it.
Schnoor: I don't think that, for personal benefit, you can actually harvest the seed on CRP ground, but promoting native grasses and stuff is very important in the CRP land.
Stutsman: Lori, where do you see more of a demand for your services? Is there still a pretty sizable demand in the rural areas or are you seeing more of a need in the urban?
Schnoor: I think a lot in the rural areas, as far as the technical aspect goes. The urban, Amy Bouska is the environmental specialist, she's been working on that, but it seems like there's quite a bit to do, so I think there's going to be a lot more demand in the near future. Also, another thing that I see is some education. There's a very high demand for that.
Jordahl: To pick up on Steve's grass question, the... I think maybe, we were talking with the company that manages the County's land out by Chatham Oaks at the County Farm. The question of whether some of that ground... an alternate way... as your talking about bidding in CRP... there's a problem there wasn't enough money, and so forth, what we want to know is the possibility of, as Steve suggested, putting grass in there and harvesting, not on CRP ground, but just doing that as a way of making money from that ground. Then maybe those seeds could be used not only for our own Roadside Vegetation Management Program, but maybe for others with their CRP ground that might want to restore some of that stuff and in part for wildlife habitat. I think maybe the question is not whether we can grow it on CRP ground, but whether we can do something productive with that land that would revolve around these seeds, and maybe that's a conversation for you and Russ Bennett, and what's the name of the, Farmland National, something like that?
Stutsman: Bruce Ahrens.
Jordahl: Bruce Ahrens. Could have...
Schnoor: OK.
Stutsman: Lori, when you talk about education demands, is that to go into the schools or just in the community, one-on-one with people?
Schnoor: I think within the schools, there's probably, I haven't really looked into it too much yet, but hopefully I will be able to, within the schools. We also have a Community Guide to Agriculture Program that educates urban and brings the rural and the urban community together, so...
Lacina: It appears there's a new wave of Ground Water Clean Water Act coming down that I'm sure the ag community will need to have more involvement in the next series of environmental protection laws. The idea of being, I think proposing 10 showcase farms in the state, provide buffer strips on streams and some experimental things being developed, so...
Duffy: That will be a voluntary procedure.
Schnoor: Yes.
Duffy: Actually I think the Feds have about 20 of these things and watersheds, but not any in Iowa. I've got some information on it. There's quite a few ways to conserve your soil though. That all depends. Because the bigger it's getting, that's the best way, there's the problem I think.
Stutsman: Are there any other questions for Lori?
Lacina: Looks like you're going to be busy the next 3 months.
Stutsman: Thank you for coming in.
Schnoor: Thanks for having me.
Stutsman: Keep us updated.
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MEMBER M. KATHRYN WALLACE: SENIOR CENTER UPDATE
Stutsman: Business from Kathryn Wallace regarding the Senior Center update. Good morning, Kathryn.
M. Kathryn Wallace: Good morning.
Bolkcom: Good morning.
Wallace: I wanted to tell you in January we will be sponsoring a series on human rights and you will be getting information about that in the post and in other ways, but letting you know that's something we're looking forward to in January. We're working on increased security to the building. Too many people who shouldn't be in the building are able to get in and we're investigating perhaps swipe cards for those that we want, so we can change codes. Just to let you know that security to the building is something that we're looking at. Our HVAC project to have energy throughout the building more efficient is underway. Ideally the completion will be by March, but realistically I'm not sure that's going to happen, but we are working on the HVAC project. Perhaps you know some of the children that participated in our holiday bazaar. I don't have the exact figures yet, but that will be coming out. We served over 270 children. We had new ways of organizing. Again, it's such a wonderfully chaotic, joyful experience.
Stutsman: Well put.
Wallace: Yes. One of the things we did this year was to have volunteers at the door. We had security for children as they were registered with their name. We also had the name of the responsible adult and as they were leaving, we did check to make sure that the child belonged to the person, just to be careful. Parents and guardians and adult friends seemed to think that was a good idea, that we're taking good care of their children. There will be a full report in January and Hills Bank was the sponsor and were very generous and helpful in that wonderful tradition at the Senior Center. Those are the areas that I wanted to report to you in our monthly report. Are there questions that you have?
Duffy: Well I was there one day, the place was packed with the senior citizens. I think that was the Senior Center band, wasn't it, back in the back there?
Wallace: Uh-huh.
Duffy: They're doing a good job.
Wallace: Yes, it's a good place to stop by and spend time because there's such diversity of activities and individuals. We do not only cater to seniors 55 and older, but we have many inter-generational programs. So we are broadening our offerings.
Stutsman: I was going to ask you about the security issue. Is that during the day or is that in the evening?
Wallace: For our increased security to the building, it's basically after hours.
Stutsman: OK.
Wallace: Yes. Because we feel we monitor during the day, but maybe in certain rooms there might be special security. It's something that's being looked at, but it's particularly for after hours.
Stutsman: Are these homeless people that are...
Wallace: Oh no, no.
Stutsman: OK, it's just...
Wallace: No, it's like one group having access, letting another group in that ended up in parts of the building that were hopefully secure, but they're not. So, it's not a big problem and yet we're getting computers and other things. We just don't want to have something happen that we don't want to happen. So we're trying to be proactive and look at this and say what is right and how do we take good care of this building and the things that we have within the building. So it's not a big problem, but it is a small problem that we don't want to be a problem at all.
Duffy: Well I can see, even being on the Senior Dining Committee for 9 years, we changed our meeting from 1:00 to 3:30; it usually lasts 2 hours. That's 5:30.
Wallace: After hours.
Duffy: When you go to leave, some person, the doors open. You get out, but you can't get in, but I noticed there was a door that was unlocked, up in the mezzanine, down on the first floor. I can see why folks could get in there after hours, and they shouldn't be there.
Wallace: Nothing awful has happened, and yet we do have some wonderful resources in the Center and we want to protect them.
Lacina: In fact, there are only 6 business days left before Christmas for people to use the Elder Craft Store in the Senior Center which is a wonderful thing.
Wallace: Thank you, it is a wonderful. Have you finished your Christmas shopping? I've gotten lots of, yes, come to the Elder Craft Shop. 6 days left, thank you. That is great.
Lacina: I like the place.
Duffy: Yes, wooden tulips.
Wallace: Yes.
Lacina: Or the afghans, there's a lot of neat stuff.
Wallace: Oh, I've gotten some... Yes. If you have no further questions, I want to sincerely thank you for my initial appointment to the Senior Center Commission and thank you for my reappointment. I have enjoyed representing you. I'll tell you it was just awesome to see that my next appointment ends on December the 31st, 2000. There's something quite awesome about seeing that in print, but I am your representative, but I also am a resource to you and I think that perhaps I haven't offered that you can call on me at times during my appointment. So I want to be very clear that I am a resource to you. If you have no further questions, the last thing is that I want to wish each of you the happiest of holidays.
Stutsman: Thank you very much.
Jordahl: Thank you.
Stutsman: Business from Dwight Dobberstein, Project Architect for Neumann-Monson, PC Architects. This is regarding the Johnson County Courthouse first floor courtroom and office renovations. Pat Langenberg, Physical Plant Manager is also here with us this morning. Do you have something to report?
Dobberstein: Do you have this?
Stutsman: I got that. I don't know if everybody has a copy of that or not. Was it in the packet?
Bolkcom: Yes.
Stutsman: OK, good. We should all have that.
Dobberstein: Thursday we received these bids, and we have 6 bidders, which is amazing. I think it was the time of the year, everybody was looking for work. Low bid is Aanestad Construction. They've been around a number of years. We've worked with them, done a lot of... They're a smaller company, but they do a lot of small projects for the University and commercial projects and the last one we did was remodeling the Perpetual Bank downtown. They did a real nice job there. I'm real happy and I think they will do a good job. Their base bid price was $72,870. That's under our estimate. Our estimate, I went back and looked at it just for construction costs, which will be comparable here, was about $99,000. So they were well under our estimate and then I think they just needed the work. They said they got a number of sub-bids. 2 mechanical bids and lowest was Walco, they're out of Coralville. Electrically they had 7 bids, the low was Advanced Electric in Iowa City here. All the others they had at least 3 to 4 bids on every other: painting, flooring, and ceiling. We think we've got a real good price here. The one concern that was expressed about the woodwork, I asked them about that, and they are planning to use Charlie Miller. He's been around a long time and he's a true millwright. They're going to remake all the woodwork for the lower floor courtroom. They're going to use whatever they can of that and restore the 2 turrets up on third floor, if you go ahead and decide to go with that alternate. Some of those turrets have the round curved woodwork, it's hard to make that and...
Stutsman: And that's included in this bid price, using Charlie?
Dobberstein: Well the base bid is just the courtroom. The alternate, number 1, is the 2 turrets. That's $18,278. That's just a little bit below from where we thought it would be, so that we think is a good price. Alternate number 2, is the HVAC modifications. That, as you recall is extending the ductwork in the ceiling on the south half of the bottom floor there to the County Attorney's Offices. Right now there are some interior offices there that don't have any ventilation and this would extend ductwork to them. It's really the last of that mechanical plan to complete. That was done a few years ago. The third alternate was for bullet resistant glazing and I think this was included in there by addendum, we had requests from Carroll Edmondson to put that in, get a price to put bullet-proof glazing, actually it's 2 new windows in the west windows of the courtroom itself. Apparently there was concern there that they provide additional protection for the judges. So we put it in to get a price and... We had estimated it to be around $10,000, it came in a little higher, but they're all very tightly packed there, so this must be the right price I guess.
Jordahl: It's 2 windows?
Dobberstein: It's 2 windows, but...
Jordahl: That's some expensive windows.
Dobberstein: Yes, it's...
Lacina: I guess I do have some concerns on that. I was up there yesterday in Pat White's office and I have to go back up this afternoon, but people on the outside can walk by those windows and see exactly who's in there. Because it's bullet-proof glass, all they have to do is wait and watch, and when they leave, if they want to harm them, they can do it then. I think it might be better for us to look at the entire first floor and consider either blinds or reflective glazing. Because even with these windows, somebody with a high-powered rifle, that glass is not going to stop that. I'm wondering if the money wouldn't be better invested in some type of reflective mechanism so you couldn't just look into the window and see who was there. Basically it is scary, somebody can walk along and the desk is right there and they would never see it coming.
Stutsman: And Pat, you can do that yourself can't you?
Langenberg: Sure, we've done that down at the Sheriff's Office, yes.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Lacina: The other thing, since the numbers came in I thought, very favorable on the turrets. I'm wondering if we don't go back to Carroll and say, with these bids we are going to do that third turret and direct them to move their computer equipment. He would have to do that within his budget. But as part of this package, I think these are very favorable numbers. If we don't in the future and we decide to renovate that lower turret room, we've got to tear out some of the construction we're putting in now to restring all their wires for their computer system. If you go up there some time in that southwest turret room, basically it would be a very nice office for one of the judges or that, but they've got a little bank of computers in there and I think now is the time to rewire. If we could just shift it to the southwest corner, over by the spiral staircase, probably move it what, 15 feet? But they'd have to restring the wires. Again we wouldn't be tearing out the drywall stuff that we're going to be putting in now.
Stutsman: Now, moving that turret, or that computer room isn't included in any of this stuff?
Dobberstein: No, we'd have to get a price from Aanestad to do that.
Stutsman: That's the downstairs room where all that computer stuff is now? Has there been a request to do that?
Bolkcom: Why wasn't it included in this.
Langenberg: We've looked at that, and I think the problem was the access in and out for the judge. He has no access in and out of his courtroom was the problem with that.
Stutsman: The way it is now, Pat, or the way...
Langenberg: No, if they were to have the judge in where the turret is right now. There was no access in and out of those chambers for him. They looked I think, into the price, or cost, of moving that computer equipment. I think it was $15,000 to move it from that turret room over to that southwest corner of that room. I think their main problem was the security for the judge getting in and out of the room.
Stutsman: So even if we move this stuff, there's probably no guarantee that they would in fact use that room for the judge's chamber?
Lacina: Well, but it wouldn't have to be for a judge. Keep it in mind they want space for bailiffs. They wanted to take over Carol Thompson's whole area. The County Attorney could use it for, well, for an attorney to go back and start collecting some of the back taxes. We definitely could use that space. I'm just wondering now, instead of remodeling and then later on going back and tearing part of it out, we just go in and do the whole thing right. The $15,000, that's going to be at Carroll's expense, but also he's benefiting from this immensely in space and utilization. I just think we should do this whole project right, with these numbers, glaze the glass on the entire first floor, or blinds, if they want to let light in, have it so that you could control the light, and then the other thing is address this turret now.
Bolkcom: Well it sounds like we need to get with the judges and we need to talk to everybody again if we're...
Stutsman: Yes, I guess I need to...
Bolkcom: It seems like a reasonable thought, Steve, but we've got a bid to do something else here, and if we're going to plan for their use, we should get them involved in it. If Pat wants it or if the judges want it, or if the courts need it, we should be talking to them about it before we spend any money to fix it up.
Lacina: Though you may have some individuals that are looking very short term.
Jordahl: I think the tape needs to be flipped over here.
Lacina: It automatically flips.
Jordahl: Oh, does it automatically do it. OK.
Lacina: But I do think this is something just to consider. While we're in there, and everyone's in there, at these prices it would be a good deal.
Stutsman: If we consider this, where does it throw this project?
Dobberstein: Well, I think we should proceed and get a contract, and I think Aanestad's ready to start right away. Then we can, if you want to do this other turret, would get him to give us a price to add that.
Stutsman: OK.
Dobberstein: To this contract. I think this would be a good time to do that, because he'd be in there, it would be all torn up, so...
Stutsman: Well maybe we can do some work and put this back on. I guess I want to not slow this process down, but I think we need to look at that. So maybe put that on for next week or the following week to re-look at that computer room. Give all of us a chance for a field trip over there to look at the situation, maybe talk to some of the judges, or whatever.
Jordahl: Well is it something that we could ask Aanestad to estimate? Do we know what we want to do with that room?
Stutsman: Well I don't think we do. I was going to say that's why I think we need to discuss a little bit more.
Jordahl: So it would make a difference. I wanted to ask about the water infiltration in those turret rooms. The one in particular on the east has got like the plaster is all discolored, and the woodwork and so forth. Is that something... Have the ceilings been rectified. I assume that's all healed by now.
Lacina: We had a pipe freeze and break.
Langenberg: That's been, that's been storage room since I've been...
Duffy: Heaven knows.
Langenberg: Yes, I have no clue. I started in 80 and it was storage rooms then. That plaster just deteriorated.
Jordahl: But do we know that it's not continuing to have water.
Langenberg: Oh, no, we know that.
Jordahl: OK.
Stutsman: OK, so are we OK with this lowest bid? Is that what the Board wants to vote on?
Bolkcom: Sounds great.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: Which alternatives do we want to go with? Do we want to leave out alternative 3 then and maybe have Pat look into doing some glazing or, reflective, whatever that's called.
Langenberg: We've got blinds throughout the whole first floor now, but we could sure put the glazing on, if that's what you're after.
Lacina: I would suggest formally we accept 1 and 2 on the bids and then communicate with them as far as glazing, some type of reflective coating.
Stutsman: Then work on talking with the judges concerning the computer room. OK.
Bolkcom: Who will do that last part? Do we need to formally do that?
Lacina: No, I think Pat can talk to some...
Jordahl: Well I think there were some...
Bolkcom: County Attorney, and the Judges, and Pat.
Stutsman: Would it be...
Langenberg: Whoever wants it. I'm sure...
Jordahl: Did I misunderstand the earlier discussion that you said maybe we could do the reflective glass rather than the...
Stutsman: Yes, we're talking about moving the computer room, Jonathan.
Jordahl: Oh, I see.
Stutsman: Yes, we kind of moved ahead. Pat do you want to work with a couple of the Supervisors to do that? To meet with the judges, do you want to do that on your own? Do you want to do it with Dwight?
Langenberg: I think we'd better have a Supervisor or 2 involved in that.
Stutsman: OK, all right. Are there...
Lacina: Because I have a sense they're going to tell you they don't want to spend the money right now.
Langenberg: I know. I went back through my notes and it's been a year and a half ago. They said absolutely no way they would move because it was too expensive and they didn't have money in the budget at that time. So I'm sure that's where they're going to be coming from. So...
Lacina: I guess my position is they're not paying for the remodeling which is our money. They would easily have us rip it out in the future and redo it. I think if we're going to be in there and stop up and take a look. The computer banks are about the size of that filing cabinet and it's taking up that whole room.
Stutsman: Yes.
Lacina: I think it's a huge waste of space.
Stutsman: Well I'd be willing to work with you on that.
Langenberg: Sure.
Stutsman: On that, Pat. Is there another Supervisor that wants to...
Lacina: Ed Steinbrech's Office to see what it could be. It could be very nice.
Jordahl: Sounds like, Steve, are you interested in doing this?
Lacina: Because of the discussion I've had with Mr. Edmondson, it might be better if I not.
Stutsman: Joe, do you want to?
Bolkcom: I'd be willing to do it.
Lacina: Thank you.
Stutsman: OK, because we had worked with Mr. Edmondson and some of the judges before, so if you could let us know, Pat when that, just check with, and we'll just go ahead and put this on for Thursday, to vote on alternative 1 and 2.
Dobberstein: 1 and 2, OK.
Stutsman: On that bid price.
Dobberstein: I'll go ahead and get a contract ready to sign and...
Lacina: For a little history, in my opinion, Carroll is very fast to spend our money, but very slow to spend theirs. That's why I'm saying if we're in there now, let's do it right.
Duffy: What happened to the idea of having a security officer in there? Everybody couldn't drive up to the parking area anyway. We discussed that one time didn't we?
Lacina: Well if we wanted to pay for it.
Duffy: Well I know, but anybody can drive up there, so we either do that or the windows, I suppose.
Stutsman: OK, we'll put that on for Thursday.
Dobberstein: OK. Thank you.
Stutsman: Thank you.
Bolkcom: Thank you.
(Continued in Part 2)