HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-03 Info Packet1 - 1
-&ft A&_ _
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
MISCELLANEOUS
IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda
IP2 The Snow Emergency Declaration [submitted by the City Manager]
IP3 The Kiplinger Letter - January 28, 2011 [submitted by the City Manager]
February 3, 2011
IN Automated Traffic Enforcement: A Home Rule success story [submitted by the City
Manager]
IP5 Memorandum from the City Clerk: April -June Meeting Schedule
IP6 Media Release: Off - Campus Housing Fair to provide students with info about living
successfully on their own
IP7 Building Permit Information - January 2011
IP8 Thank you from the Iowa City Book Festival
IP9 ECICOG Express 2010 Annual Report
IP10 Minutes: Joint Informal Meeting of Johnson County Board of Supervisors and Criminal
Justice Coordinating Committee: January 5, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
IP11 Youth Advisory Commission: January 9, 2011
IP12 Human Rights Commission: January 18, 2011
I _ 1
®4 02 -03 -11
., City Council Meeting Schedule and IP1
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas February 3, 2011
www.icgov.org
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
♦ MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14
Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
♦ TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting
♦ MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Presidents' Day — City Offices Closed
♦ WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23
4:30p Special Work Session (Joint Meeting at Johnson County)
♦ MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28
Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p City Conference Board
Regular Work Session
♦ TUESDAY, MARCH 1
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting
♦ MONDAY, MARCH 21
Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
♦ TUESDAY, MARCH 22
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting
IP2
Marian Karr
From: Tom Markus
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:41 PM
To: Council
Subject: Fwd: Snow Emergency Information
Fyi
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Carol Sweeting" <Carol- Sweetingkiowa -ci .org>
Date: February 1, 20114:51:23 PM CST
To: "John Sobaski" < John- Sobaskigiowa- city.org >, "Bud Stockman" <Gerald-
Stockman(cr�iowa -ci orb >, "Rick Fosse" <Rick- Fosse(a�iowa -cit .org >, "Ron
Knoche" <Ron- Knochekiowa- city.org >, "Chris O'Brien" <Chris-OBrien2iowa-
cit .or >, "Mark Rummel" <Mark- Rummelkiowa -city org >, "Jim Steffen" <Jim-
Steffenkiowa- ci1y.org >, "Shannon McMahon" <Shannon-McMahonkiowa-
cit .or >, "Terry Robinson" <Terry- Robinson2iowa -ci .org >, "Stephanie Lane"
<Stephanie-Lanena iowa -ci .ors >, "Marian Karr" <Marian- Karr(a),iowa- city_org>
Cc: "Tom Markus" <Tom- Markus2iowa -ci .or >
Subject: Snow Emergency Information
The Snow Emergency Declaration was signed at 1:35 today and will go
into effect at 8 AM on Wednesday morning. Snow Emergency
information has been provided to all local news media. The University
of Iowa and Kirkwood Public Information staff were notified so as to
post the Snow Emergency information for their staff and students. The
City Channel 4 is running a Snow Emergency trailer every 15 minutes.
The Snow Emergency phone line 356 -0100 is active and includes Snow
Emergency rules as well as information about towed vehicles. Social
media included icgov.org texts and Snow Emergency Twitter
information which was delivered to those patrons who subscribed. If
you have any questions or concerns call me at 319 - 541 -2385.
Thanks,
Carol Sweeting
Public Works
Public InformationNolunteer Coordinator
3800 Napoleon Lane
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone 319/356 -5164
Cell 319/541 -2385
Fax 319 - 356 -5183
2/2/2011
IP3
M
Marian Karr
From: Tom Markus
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:39 AM
To: "City Council
Subject: FW: The Kiplinger Letter
Attachments: TheKiplingerLetter. 1.28.201 1.pdf
See comments under labor
From: Kevin O'Malley
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 20115:13 PM
To: Tom Markus
Subject: FW: The Kiplinger Letter
Kevin O'Malley
Director of Finance
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
kevin- omallev(&iowa -city. ora
319.356.5053
fax 319.341.4008
Please consider the environment and do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
From: Shannon McMahon
Sent: Monday, January 31, 20118:48 AM
To: Dale Helling; Kevin O'Malley
Subject: The Kiplinger Letter
Good morning.
Attached is the January 28th edition of The Kiplinger Letter.
Shannon McMahon
City of Iowa City
Document Services Supervisor
356 -5058
2/2/2011
Julie Voparil
From:
Marian Karr
Sent:
Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:46 PM
To:
Julie Voparil
Subject:
ask me re
Importance: High
Kiplinger contacted the City and voiced objection to displaying the letter due to copyright issues and the letter is being
removed at their request.
Atauan 5f. Xau, AL me
City Clerk
City of Iowa City
319 - 356 -5041 (Phone)
319 - 356 -5497 (FAX)
Population 67,862
M IP4
Since its tnceptit)n, the prernise and the promise of l-Iomc Rule
has been that city leadet:s, left. to their own initiative, can came up
wirl) locafi ed solutions to mosr effi:crivcir meat their needs aril
':.)cst snlee their problems. "Thanks to a pair of 1<nr a Supr�mc• Court
case< decided in \ac usr 20)08 C'it )- D;�cuf�ort y Stvinour and
lt.ltct iC �.I1 v C her of lla� rn ort cities hate lien tiivcn tl e green light.
tc_� in�pk_n�(:n[ "RU[O1l7Rl'ed t.f'a }I'[C C:'1]t(lrCernC',nt as a taeans o} j?�o-
�rid.in r effe-Ctire and economica& feasible traffic enforcement. This
su'ticl.t. will contrast- traditional traffic cnf:orcetne:nt �rirh' wtornated
traffic en.forcernent ", will outline the steps citics hare: to rake to
i17pJeM,,nt: it, and will reliort the results ach.im ud in several cities
that have irnplenienred it.
Traditional Traffic Enforcement:
Traditional traffic enforcement relies on a police officer being
present to observe each traffic violation as it
occurs and then being
able to apprehend the driver who violated the law. The police offi-
cer then issues a criminal citation (traffic ticket) to the vehicle driv-
er, charging the driv-
er with a violation
Update
of either state law
or local ordinance.
The driver is then
The Iowa Public Agency Investment
required to appear
21'ust is a jointly sponsored progr-arn for
in court and enter
ntenrbers of the Iowa League of Cities,
a plea. If the driver
the Iowa State Association of Counties and
pleads guilty or is
the Iowa Association. of Municipal Utilities.
found guilty at trial,
he or she is then re-
As of December 20.2010
quired to pay a crimi-
Number of Trust members ... 430
nal fine that is estab-
• 208 cities
lished by state law.
• 95 counties
The obvious dif
• 89 utilities
ficulty with this tra-
- 38 28E agreements
ditional enforcement
Simple avg. monthly rate ....0.050%
model is that cities
cannot afford to field
Current daily rate ......... 0.050%
enough police of-
ficers to apprehend
For more information call:
significant numbers
1- 800 -872 -4024
of violators. This is
especially problem-
atic at intersections
with a high incidence of stoplight violations and accidents. It is
simply not feasible and would likely be ineffective to post a police
cruiser at all such locations round - the -clock and expect to solve
the problem.
Automated Traffic Enforcement:
In 2004, Davenport enacted an "automated traffic enforcement"
(ATE) ordinance and entered into a contract with RedFex Traffic
Systems, authorizing Redflex to install video cameras and vehicle
sensors at various locations to make images of vehicles that run
red lights. The ordinance made it a civil violation (municipal infrac-
tion) to run a red light and was amended in 2006 to cover vehicles
that were speeding. Images of vehicles running,red lights or speed-
ing, including the license number of the offending vehicle, are for-
warded by Redflex to the Davenport Police Department where an
officer determines whether a violation occurred and the name of
the vehicle owner. A notice is then issued to the owner advising
that the owner's vehicle has been involved in a violation of a traf-
fic regulation and that the owner is liable for payment of a civil
fine. The owner of the vehicle is given the opportunity to rebut
the claimed violation by showing that the vehicle was stolen at the
time of the violation. An owner who desires to dispute the notice
of violation can request the issuance of a municipal infraction cita-
tion and thereby be entitled to a trial before a judge or magistrate.
Notices of red light and speeding violations also include reference
to a Web page where the owner can view a five second video clip
showing the vehicle as it engaged in the alleged violation.
The obvious advantage of automated traffic enforcement is that
it does not require that a police officer be on the scene to observe
the violation and apprehend the violator. The automated traffic
imaging equipment can be "on duty" continuously at any number
of high violation or high accident locations throughout the city to
address those problems.
The Davenport ATE ordinance was challenged on several
grounds, including the claim that the ordinance was preempted be-
cause state law only provided for the criminal prosecution of traf-
fic law violators and did not authorize civil enforcement actions.
In upholding the ATE ordinance the Supreme Court stated that,
"(F)he fact that state law does not author i e the state to es force its statute
through certain remedial options does not mean that it forbids municipali-
ties froth the same course of action. In the context of state -local preemp-
tion, the silence of the legislature is notprohibiby butpermissh)e."
Implementation of Automated Traffic Enforcement
The implementation of automated traffic enforcement involves
the adoption of an ATE ordinance and the procurement of a ven-
dor t_o provide the necessary video cameras and vehicle sensors re-
lated to hardware and software. The vendor's services will typically
also include assistance in the selection of intersections for red light
cameras and selection of locations for speeding cameras, training
of city staff and operation and maintenance of the cameras and
related equipment. The vendor is typically compensated by way
of a percentage of the fine money recovered from violators, thus
sparing the city the initial cost of financing the installation of the
system.
Vendors of ATE services and equipment that are actively pro-
viding services in Iowa include Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. head-
quartered in Scottsdale, Arizona and Gatso USA, headquartered
in Beverly, Massachusetts. The table below shows the automated
traffic enforcement services which these companies are currently
providing to cities in Iowa:
In addition to Redflex and Gatso, RedSpeed Illinois, headquar-
tered in Lombard, Illinois and Traffipax, Inc., headquartered in
Linthicum, Maryland, were also respondents to Cedar Rapids' re-
quest for proposal for automated traffic enforcement services in
August 2009.
impact of Automated Traffic Enforcement
In December 2007, the Center for Transportation and Research
at Iowa State University (CTRE) concluded a study of automated
red light enforcement in Davenport and Council Bluffs, summadz-
ing the results of that study below.
Results of the research indicate that RLR (red light running)
cameras were very successful in reducing crashes related to red li ght
running in the two Iowa communities studied. In Davenport, a 40
percent reduction in RLR crashes was found. In Council Bluffs, a
90 Percent reduction was found Total crashes also decreased_at
intersections with RLR camera enforcement. Reductions in total
crashes of 20 percent and 44 percent were found in Davenport
and Council Bluffs, respectively. Additionally, while there has been
some concern at the national level that use of RLR cameras in-
crease rear -end crashes, the present research did not find an in-
crease in rear -end crashes.
CTRE is currently conducting a study of speeding cameras that
were installed on I -380 in the vicinity of the S- curves in downtown
Cedar Rapids, with the expectation the camera enforcement would
reduce speed and traffic accidents in that area. Although the CTRE
study will not be completed for some time, the city's preliminary
data indicates that speeding violations have dropped from 400 per
day in a pre - enforcement observation period to 100 per day after
enforcement com-
menced. Further- BoL_..re�N 8.. M t=ry K , •t NC.
more, there have
been no crashes in
the S- curves since
installation of the
cameras in March
2010, reducing traf-
fic accident fatalities
in the S- curves from
four in 2009 to zero
in 2010.
ATE Services
Provided: Date of contract / initial
Cities served Redflex Gatso Red li ht Speedin g date services commenced
Clive
x
x
March 2006 / July 2006
Council Bluffs
x
x
May 2005 / August 2005
Davenport
x
_ x
x
January 2004 / August 2004
Sioux City
x
x
December 2006 / June 2009
Cedar Rapids�4
�-
x
x _
x
October 2009 / March 2010
Des Moines
X
x
x
x
contract pending
Consulting En9lneers & Surveyors
lanrrary 9n11 C'itvcranP 7K
� m ILI
CITY OF IOWA CITY IP5
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 21, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: April -June Meeting Schedule
will be preparing a draft meeting schedule for April -June, and will follow first and third
Tuesday scheduling for formals and the day before for work sessions. Please take a look at
your personal calendars and call me with any dates that might be a conflict for you. Based on
the input received I will prepare a draft schedule for discussion at your February 14 work
session.
U:scheduling.doc
L_003____1"4__jP6
Dale Helling
From: City of Iowa City [web @iowa- city.org]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 8:25 AM
To: Dale Helling
Subiect: Off - Campus Housing Fair to provide students with info about living successfully on their own
Off - Campus Housing Fair to provide students with Contact: Marcia Bollinger
info about living successfully on their own Contact Phone: (319) 356 -5237
Posted by: Neighborhood Services
Mailing List(s): Classes, Programs & Events
- General City News
Originally Posted 1/31/2011 8:25:14 AM
Students who are considering moving off - campus next year, as well as those who already are
living on their own, are encouraged to attend this year's Off - Campus Housing Fair to learn about
the variety of housing options available in the community, and to collect information on how to
successfully transition to apartment living in Iowa City neighborhoods.
The Housing Fair will be held Thursday, February 10 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the second -floor
ballroom in the University of Iowa Memorial Union, 125 N. Madison Street. This year, for the first
time since the Housing Fair was initiated, students will have an opportunity to meet with local
property managers and apartment owners to discuss available housing options and the
requirements of being a tenant.
In addition, over 20 service providers with expertise on tenant - landlord topics, health and safety,
and entertainment and recreational opportunities will be available to provide information and
advice to students regarding off - campus living. Find out how to protect yourself and your
belongings, what you need to know about leases, and how to avoid legal problems by learning
about the City's Nuisance Property Ordinance. Students are encouraged to bring questions and
concerns they have regarding the opportunities and responsibilities of being a renter and living
on their own.
Participating students will also have a chance to win an I -Pad or $100 gift card that will be given
away in the Housing Fair drawing.
The Off - Campus Housing Fair is sponsored by the University of Iowa Off - Campus Housing
Service and the City of Iowa City, with the support of University of Iowa Student Government
(UISG), Executive Council of Graduate and Professional Students (ECGPS), and Student Legal
Services. For more information, contact Penny Kaelber at the University of Iowa at 319.335.3038
or by e -mail at penny- kaelber(abuiowa.edu, or Marcia Bollinger with the City of Iowa City at
319.356.5237 or by e-mail at marcia- bollinger(a)iowa- city.orq.
Do not reply directly to this e-mail! It is produced from an automated system, and is not monitored for replies. If you
have a question or comment about this information, please contact the originating department of this message, or by
using our feedback form.
For technical questions regarding the website, please contact our web team.
• Unsubscribe or edit your subscription details.
• Visit our iobs page for employment opportunities.
• View more news from the City of Iowa City.
1/31/2011
f,.
� Z7
I
i
BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION
January 2011
KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS
Type of Improvement:
ADD - Addition
ALT - Alteration
REP - Repair
FND - Foundation Only
NEW -New
OTH - Other type of construction
Type of Use:
RSF - Residential Single Family
RDF - Residential Duplex
RMF - Three or more residential
RAC - Residential Accessory Building
MIX - Mixed
NON - Non - residential
OTH - Other
Page :
2
City of Iowa City
Date :
2/1/2011
Extraction of Building Permit Data for
To:
From
From :
1/1/2011
1/31/2011
Bureau Report
BLD11 -00017 NANCY G KENNEDY
224 1/2 S LINN ST
TXm
Type
$2,948
TUB /SHOWER FOR APARTMENT IN MIXED USE BUILDING
Permit Number Name
Address
Imor
Use
Stories Units
Valuation
BLD11 -00019 SCOTT & LIZ FIRMSTONE
301 RIVER ST
ADD
RSF
2 0
$250,000
ADDITION AND ALTERATION FOR SFD
SPACES
BLD10 -00026 PROCTER & GAMBLE HAIR
ACCESSIBLE USABILITY
ALT NON
0 0
$113,534
NORTH RESTROOM REMODEL
BLD10 -00769 GEORGE & REBECCA BERG
418 WALES ST
ADD
RSF
0 0
$11,000
SCREEN PORCH AND DECK ADDITION FOR SFD
$100,000
RESTAURANT REMODEL
Total ADD/RSF permits: 2
41 HIGHWAY 1 WEST
ALT NON
Total Valuation :
$261,000
BLD11 -00017 NANCY G KENNEDY
224 1/2 S LINN ST
ALT MIX
2 0
$2,948
TUB /SHOWER FOR APARTMENT IN MIXED USE BUILDING
Total ALT /MIX permits: 1
Total Valuation :
$2,948
BLD11 -00013 PROCTER & GAMBLE
2500 HEINZ RD
ALT NON
1 0
$195,000
DIVIDE WAREHOUSE INTO SEPARATE TENANT
SPACES
BLD10 -00026 PROCTER & GAMBLE HAIR
2200 LOWER MUSCATINE
ALT NON
0 0
$113,534
NORTH RESTROOM REMODEL
BLD10 -00656 BUFFALO WILD WINGS, IN
201 S CLINTON ST 120
ALT NON
0 0
$100,000
RESTAURANT REMODEL
BLD11 -00011 GATEWAY ONE LC
41 HIGHWAY 1 WEST
ALT NON
1 0
$30,000
Remove 60' of masonry wall and install steel beam system
Dollar General expanding to west -See BLD10 -00685
BLD11 -00043 IOWA CITY LODGE #590 BP
637 FOSTER RD
ALT NON
0 0
$23,000
REMODEL MEMBERS LOCKER ROOMS
BLD11 -00021 AT &T MOBILITY
1900 MORNINGSIDE DR
ALT NON
0 0
$10,000
RELOCATE ANTENNAE TO LOWER ROOFTOP FROM CUPOLA
BLD11 -00009 HILLS BANK & TRUST CO
2621 MUSCATINE AVE
ALT NON
0 0
$7,000
Remove electric fireplace and add wall and door with
sidelight.
BLD11 -00008 MARILYN AND VLADAMIR
316 E BLOOMINGTON ST
ALT NON
0 0
$4,000
Install stairs to attic
BLD11 -00018 CREAM LLC DBA UNION B
121 E COLLEGE ST
ALT NON
2 0
$2,000
ENLARGE COBALT ROOM AREA OF BAR
BLD11 -00037 CITY OF IOWA CITY
1200 S RIVERSIDE DR
ALT NON
0 0
$500
OFFICE PARTITION FOR EQUIPMENT SHOP OFFICE
Total ALT /NON permits: 10
Total Valuation :
$485,034
BLD10 -00676 DRAGONFLY PROPERTIES I
411 S LUCAS ST
ALT RDF
2 0
$10,000
Convert three unit apartment to duplex
BLD11 -00030 GREG ALLEN
301 FAIRCHILD ST
ALT RDF
0 0
$1,000
ADD BEDROOM TO DUPLEX UNIT
Total ALT /RDF permits: 2
Total Valuation :
$11,000
BLD11 -00033 RIVER CITY HOUSING COLI
200 S SUMMIT ST
ALT RMF
0 0
$250
MOVE DOORWAY TO STORAGE CLOSET
Page: 3 City of Iowa City
Date: 2/1/2011 Extraction of Building Permit Data for
To: 1/1/2011
From : 1/31/2011 From Bureau Report
Type Type
Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation
Total ALTI"F permits : 1 Total Valuation : $250
BLD11 -00036 GRETCHEN OLSON
3035 E COURT ST
ALT
RSF
0 0
$50,000
KITCHEN REMODEL FOR SFD
BLD11 -00026 JOE & ANGELA SOBASKI
904 WEBSTER ST
ALT
RSF
0 0
$25,000
REMODEL SFD
BLDI I -00031 ANGELA & MICHAEL ICAR
11 HICKORY PLACE
ALT
RSF
0 0
$21,000
BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD
BLD11 -00006 MELVIN O & CYNTHIA S S
1034 CHAMBERLAIN DR
ALT
RSF
0 0
$20,000
Finish part of basement
BLD11 -00016 BRAD & NANCY LANGGUT
212 FERSON AVE
ALT
RSF
0 0
$19,500
BATH AND LAUNDRY FOR SFD
BLD10 -00738 CHRISTENSON, ANN F
827 DEARBORN ST
ALT
RSF
0 0
$18,000
KITCHEN REMODEL FOR SFD
BLD10 -00773 DORIS ECKEY
1100 TOWER CT
ALT
RSF
0 0
$16,000
WINDOWS AND BATH REMODEL FOR SFD
BLD11 -00001 BILL & SHIRLEY CLARKE
759 KESWICK DR
ALT
RSF
0 0
$15,000
LAUNDRY ROOM REMODEL FOR SFD
BLD09 -00452 NEAL LLEWELLYN
1102 N DUBUQUE ST
ALT
RSF
0 0
$12,000
INSTALL TRUSS ROOF SYSTEM ON ATTACHED GARAGE FOR SFD
BLDI I -00007 ADRIAN NATHAN HOLM
2352 KRISTIAN ST
ALT
RSF
0 0
$10,000
Install bedroom, bathroom, office and family room in
basement
BLD11 -00010 SARAH A WALZ
1813 MORNINGSIDE DR
ALT
RSF
0 0
$10,000
Kitchen remodel
BLDI I -00012 BRIAN D & JENNIFER M RI
20 ASHWOOD DR
ALT
RSF
0 0
$10,000
Basement finish including bedroom, sewing room, family room and bathroom
BLD10 -00768 LAMMERS CONSTRUCTION
3749 DONEGAL CT
ALT
RSF
0 0
$9,075
BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD
BLD11 -00035 LINDA & WAYNE PETERSE
907 N GILBERT ST
ALT
RSF
0 0
$8,400
BATH REMODEL FOR SFD
BLD10 -00669 RICHARD GARRISON
2468 INDIGO DR
ALT
RSF
0 0
$8,000
BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD
BLD10 -00770 STEVE KOHLI CONST LC
1565 TERRAPIN DR
ALT
RSF
0 0
$6,000
BASEMENT KITCHEN FOR SFD
BLD11 -00027 NATE TADE
1822 GLENDALE RD
ALT
RSF
0 0
$4,895
EGRESS WINDOW FOR SFD
BLD11 -00004 PECHACEK, THOMAS F
2002 PLAEN VIEW DR
ALT
RSF
1 0
$3,000
Install windows in existing screen porch
BLD11 -00005 JOSEPH D & ROSALIND L C
28 N 7TH AVE
ALT
RSF
0 0
$1,200
Remove existing finish of basement to access electrical and bring up to code and install egress window
BLD11 -00002 MIKE & ANITA SCHUCKER
3022 RADCLIFFE AVE
ALT
RSF
0 0
$900
2 EGRESS WINDOWS FOR SFD
Total ALT/RSF permits: 20
Total Valuation :
$267,970
Page:
Date:
4
2/1/2011
City of Iowa City
Extraction of Building Permit Data for
To:
From:
1/1/2011
1/31/2011
Census Bureau Report
BLDI I -00015 PRAIRIE GARDEN IHA LTD 2444 -46 CATSKILL CT
DUPLEX WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGES
2444 -2446 CATSKILL CT
NEW RDF 2 2 $407,012
Total NEW/RDF permits: 1 Total Valuation: $407,012'
BLDIO -00205 CITY OF IOWA CITY 28 S LINN ST REP NON 3 0 $152,000
ROOF REPAIR FOR SENIOR CENTER
Total REP/NON permits: 1 Total Valuation : $152,000
BLD08 -00749 RONALD R BEDNARZ 25 PENTIRE CIR REP RMF 0 0 $104,460
Flood repair
BLD08 -00868 BOB FELLOWS 135 PENTIRE CIR REP RMF 2 0 $11,500
FLOOD REPAIR FOR RMF UNIT
Total REP/RMF permits: 2 Total Valuation : $115,960
BLD08 -00710 ANDREW SHERBURNE & E 800 NORMANDY DR REP RSF 0 0 $56,000
FLOOD REPAIR FOR SFD
BLDIO -00151 TONY VILLHAUER 711 E BLOOMINGTON ST REP RSF 0 0 $3,000
ADD ADDITIONAL FRAMED SUPPORT UNDER BASEMENT BEAM;
NEW ELECTRICAL SERVICE
Total REP /RSF permits: 2 Total Valuation : $59,000
GRAND TOTALS: PERMITS: 45 VALUATION: $8,758,451
Tune
Type
Permit Number Name
Address
Impr
Use Stories Units
Valuation
BLDIO -00615 BILLION AUTO
2733 MORMON TREK BLV
NEW
NON 2 0
$5,194,646
NEW 79,422 SQ.FT. AUTO DEALERSHIP
BLDIO -00642 DEALER PROPERTIES IC, L
2675 MORMON TREK BLV
NEW
NON 2 0
$1,570,061
COLLISION CENTER FOR CAR DEALERSHIP
BLDIO -00641 BILLION AUTO
2641 MORMON TREK BLV
NEW
NON 1 0
$231,570
NEW CAR WASH
Total NEW /NON permits: 3
Total Valuation :
$6,996,277
BLDI I -00015 PRAIRIE GARDEN IHA LTD 2444 -46 CATSKILL CT
DUPLEX WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGES
2444 -2446 CATSKILL CT
NEW RDF 2 2 $407,012
Total NEW/RDF permits: 1 Total Valuation: $407,012'
BLDIO -00205 CITY OF IOWA CITY 28 S LINN ST REP NON 3 0 $152,000
ROOF REPAIR FOR SENIOR CENTER
Total REP/NON permits: 1 Total Valuation : $152,000
BLD08 -00749 RONALD R BEDNARZ 25 PENTIRE CIR REP RMF 0 0 $104,460
Flood repair
BLD08 -00868 BOB FELLOWS 135 PENTIRE CIR REP RMF 2 0 $11,500
FLOOD REPAIR FOR RMF UNIT
Total REP/RMF permits: 2 Total Valuation : $115,960
BLD08 -00710 ANDREW SHERBURNE & E 800 NORMANDY DR REP RSF 0 0 $56,000
FLOOD REPAIR FOR SFD
BLDIO -00151 TONY VILLHAUER 711 E BLOOMINGTON ST REP RSF 0 0 $3,000
ADD ADDITIONAL FRAMED SUPPORT UNDER BASEMENT BEAM;
NEW ELECTRICAL SERVICE
Total REP /RSF permits: 2 Total Valuation : $59,000
GRAND TOTALS: PERMITS: 45 VALUATION: $8,758,451
M
You've received an e-card from Kristi Bontrager.
�o.m the IC Book
7:estival
Ti-mils ,-o nnich for
iippor-a-rig our celeb-'iltion
�f 1"Ooks, leading Can
affing- in 2au.
`fisti �rjntaager and Greg
Poo
CM
C)
-
M
-on
4c)
.<r-
r7l
2010 A]�WUAL REPORT
Leo Cook, Chairperson
ECICOG Board of Directors
On behalf of the ECICOG Board
of Directors, it's my ,pleasure to
present the agency's 2010 Annual.
Report. Included in the report is a
detailed listing of all of the
projects that the agency has
participated in over the last twelve
months. Each year this list grows
longer and more impressive,
which speaks to the benefit of ECICOG, but more
importantly to the leadership and innovation in our
communities, our counties, and the region.
We appreciate each time you allow us to be part of your
local accomplishments. We look - forward to many more of
those opportunities in 2011.
Doug Elliott
ECICOG Executive Director
` I, too, !am happy to present you
with the 2010 Annual Report.
I'd also like to take this
opportunity to thank the Board"
of Directors for their ongoing
support and to commend the
a ECICOG staff for their ongoing
commitment. It's the combined
dedication of these two groups
that makes us successful.
As Chairperson Cook notes, we've provided an inventory
of activities in the report. I agree it is impressive..— nearly
overwhelming. But I'd also encourage you to spend time
reading each of the departmental activities featured in the
first few pages of the report. In compiling these articles, -
we've focused on programs or projects that we think are
some of the best examples of cooperation, creativity, and/
or collaboration in our region. One even extends across the
entire state!
Especially in a time of limited resources, cooperation and
creativity are key. That's why we're excited to announce a
new venture in this annual report: the process to create a
comprehensive regional development strategy. More
information is provided in the accompanying article, but it's
an ambitious project involving partners in the public and
private sector, so cooperation will be essential. And, it's an
aggressive timeline of only six - months, requiring us to call
on all our creative energies to get it done.
It's gonna be a busy year, once again!
A comprehensive regional development
strategy
ECICOG is designated by the federal Department of Commerce —
Economic Development Administration as the Economic
Development District for the six - county region. As such, ECICOG is
required to prepare and update a regional Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy every five years.
The Corridor Business Alliance (CBA) was formed by local and
regional organizations in the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City area that
were interested in discussing a regional approach to economic
development. The vision of the CBA is "to create a vital regional
economy through the creation and growth of business." One of the
group's objectives toward achieving that vision is the creation of a
regional economic development plan.
Recently, ECICOG and the CBA agreed to combine their efforts to
implement a coordinated, public planning process in order to create a
comprehensive regional development strategy. The centerpiece of
the process is a regional economic development summit, sponsored
by and to be held at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids,
on April 7, 2011. Prior to the summit, ECICOG will hold county
meetings to provide information on the planning process and to seek
preliminary input on the planning document (see box, page 9).
As the Region 10 Regional Planning Affiliation, ECICOG is also
responsible for the region's long -range transportation plan for a
seven - county region including.Benton, Cedar, Iowa, Johnson, Jones,
Linn and Washington Counties (excluding the Iowa City and Cedar
Rapids metropolitan areas). As part of the coordinated planning
process, ECICOG will integrate the elements of the long -range
transportation plan into the regional development strategy to create a
unified planning document. The plan will be completed by June 30,
2011.
For additional information, contact Doug Elliott (ext. 122) or
doug.elliott ,ecicog.oru.
PAGE 1
EClC dft Community Development Department
The Community Development Department continues to be
busy with many projects to plan and administer throughout
the region. A particularly innovative approach directed at
downtown revitalization is occurring in Belle Plaine, Iowa,
where a comprehensive undertaking will improve building
facades, the streetscape, and storm water. For information,
please call our Grant Writer and Administrator, Gary Hughes,
at (319) 365 -9941 ext. 129.
Cost (Estimated):
$ 2,293,000
Facade
+1,440,870
Streetscape
+ - 400,000
Storm Water
$ 4,133,870
Total
Sources:
$ 2,400,000
Grants (58 %)
+1,733,870
Local (42 %)
$ 4,133,870
Total
Belle Plaine's Downtown Revitalization
For facade, streetscape, and storm water improvements
planned within a two -block Central Business District, (12th
Street between 7th -9th Avenues), Benton County's City of Belle
Plaine is currently preparing to secure a construction contract that will revitalize its downtown, which has
experienced decline from age and disinvestment (i.e., deferred maintenance, tenant turn -over and vacancy).
As the project architect, RDG Planning and Design finalizes plans and specification to procure bids,
ECICOG works in conjunction to expedite clearance review by the State Historic Preservation Office
(prerequisite stipulated by federal grant assistance). Public infrastructure to be replaced includes new street
paving and sidewalks, together with landscaping and period lighting; parking and drives; and integrated storm water
drainage utilizing permeable pavers. Private fagade work will enhance aesthetics as well as improve structural
safety. With unique access being provided via easement agreements (for a public contract to conduct work on
private property) it is expected that the fagade component will serve as a model for other communities, as well
as sustainable "green" storm water improvements to better control run -off.
PAGE 2
EC1C4'g`G Disaster Recovery Department
As one of the State of Iowa's Disaster Recovery Areas, ECICOG has been administering a variety of programs funded
by the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which provide assistance to individual homeowners,
businesses, and landlords. But ECICOG has also been involved in a number of local recovery projects. Among these are
residential buy -out programs for the City of Vinton and Johnson County, commercial buy -out for the City of Coralville,
and administration of a number of infrastructure projects funded by CDBG, 1 -JOBS, and the federal Economic
Development Administration (EDA). This article features a project ECICOG administered on behalf of Mercy Medical
Center in Cedar Rapids. As the EDA- designated economic development district, ECICOG was able to share its expertise
in administerina EDA proiects with the first -time grantee.
After the record June 2008 flooding, the Cedar River inundated Alliant Energy's downtown steam system,
many of the largest employers in Cedar Rapids were left without a reliable and affordable source of energy.
Alliant Energy decided not to rebuild the steam system after failing to obtain enough long term steam
purchase contracts deemed necessary to fund reconstruction. Alliant's largest steam customers, including
Mercy Medical Center, built their own steam plants to replace the flooded system.
Prior to the flood, Mercy's steam needs were supplied by Alliant Energy's Cedar substation. Since the
flood, and while a new boiler plant was under construction, Mercy's steam needs were supplied on -site by
three temporary generators.
The project was funded primarily by a $4 million EDA grant, which covered 91% of the project costs.
ECICOG was hired for administrative services pertaining to project and financial management.
These services included: all required reporting for EDA, environmental review, filing and managing Davis -
Bacon records, allocation and disbursement of federal funding, and general technical assistance.
The completion of the new boiler plant is a final step in Mercy's recovery from the flood of 2008.
ECI Environmental Services Department
PAGE 4
EDepartment
ECICOG partnered with five colleague agencies from across the state to complete the U.S. Highway 30
Corridor Study. The study provides a compilation of past trends, existing conditions and future
projections in the areas of population, housing and economic conditions along the route. Additionally,
existing conditions of U.S. Highway 30 itself have been collected and evaluated, including traffic counts,
truck traffic, safety, surface width, shoulder width, surface condition, safety issues, high
accident locations, trip generation and structures.
The study was completed on behalf of the U.S. Highway 30 Coalition of Iowa, whose members include
concerned citizens, local and state officials, economic development organizations, freight shippers, and
transportation stakeholders. The U.S. Highway 30 Coalition is committed to future improvements and the
four - laning of U.S. Highway 30 to ensure safe and efficient movement, and to create increased economic
activity across Iowa.
The U.S. Highway 30 Corridor Study
was completed jointly by six regional
planning affiliations that are bisected by
the U.S. 30 Corridor: Region XII Council
of Governments, Metropolitan Area
Planning Agency — RPA 18, Central Iowa
Regional Transportation Planning
Alliance, Region 6 Planning Commission,
East Central Intergovernmental
Association, and ECICOG.
Points of information from the study are
used to justify and prioritize
improvements along U.S. Highway 30.
The U.S. Highway 30 Corridor Study
provides the U.S. 30 Coalition, local
governments, the Iowa Department of
Transportation and legislators a
comprehensive, fact -based look at the
entire corridor. Before the completion of
this study, there was no document, plan
or study that provided a detailed and
broad investigation into the conditions along the corridor or the need for transportation improvements.
PAGE 5
BENTON COUNTY
City of Atkins
• Summer Library Reading Program
City of Belle Plaine
■ m I- JOBS .Fa(;ade Project.
■ CDBG Administration - Housing
■
]-JOBS Storm Water Grant Application
■ CDBG Administration - Downtown Facade
■ CDBG Streetscape Application
City of Shellsburg
■ Summer Library Reading Program
City of Urbana
■ Housing Fund Application
City of Van Horne
■ Summer Library Reading Program
City of Vinton
• Summer Library Reading Program
■ School Solid Waste Education Programs
• Solid Waste (SW) Flood Assistance
■ Residential Buy -Out Administration
■ Smart Planning Grant Application
Benton County
■ Subdivision Ordinance Update
■ Comprehensive Plan Update
■ Landfill Services, Education.& Promotion y
• ' Recycling Drop Off Program Assistance
SWAP Grant Application
• Land Evaluation & Site Assessment Program
■ School Recycling Program —SWAP Grant
■ ' Solid Waste Flood Assistance
• EDA Business Assistance - RLF
■ Farm Safety Day SW Education /Conservation
Day
■ Solid Waste E- Newsletter
• CDBG Water Application
■ Housing Trust Fund Administration
■ Business Rental Assistance Program
■ Expanded Business Rental Assistance Program
■ Equipment Reimbursement Assistance Program
■ Loan Interest Supplemental Program
■ Commercial Rental Revenue Gap Program
• EDA Business Assistance - RLF
• Community Solid Waste Presentations
• Solid Waste E- Newsletter
• Housing Trust Fund Administration
■ = Business,Rentgl Rssistance,Progrom
■ Expanded Business Rental Assistance Program
■ Equipment Reimbursement Assistance Program
■ Loan Interest Supplemental Program
■ Commercial Rental Revenue Gap Program
■ Flood Insurance Reimbursement Program
JOHNSON COUNTY
City of Coralville
• Summer Library Reading Programs
• Community SW Educational Programs
• School SW Educational Programs
• Housing Fund.' Application
• Commercial Buy -Out
City of Hills
■ Single Family New Construction
City of Iowa City
• Landfill Services Education & Promotion
• Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Community SW Educational Programs
School SW Educational Programs
■ U of I Recycling Task Force Assistance
■ Fair /Expo SW Educational Programs
■ Summer Library Reading Program
■ ECO Iowa City Award Nominations to IRA & ICEC
City of Lone Tree
■ Housing Fund Application
City of North Liberty,,
• Summer Library Reading Program
• School Solid Waste Education Programs
• Hazard Mitigation Plan
• CDBG Administration - Housing
• Single Family New Construction
City of Shueyville
• Development Review
• Zoning Ordinance
■ Sign Ordinance!
PAGE 6
■
Summer Library Reading Program
IOWA COUNTY
■
Single Family New Construction
City of Marengo
City of Tiffin; r!
• Summer Library Reading Program
■
Single Family New Construction
City of North English
0
Multi Family New Construction
■ Codification of Ordinances !
Johnson County
City of Williamsburg
N
FHLBjAHP Administration III
■ Summer Library Reading Program
■
FHLB Application
■ CDBG Administration - Daycare
0
State & Federal Recreation Trail Applications
Iowa County
0
State Enhancement Application
■ Amana Schools Summer Library Reading
0
Hazard Mitigation Plan Grant Application
Program
0
Residential Buyout Administration - HMGP /CDBG
■ Landfill Services Education &''Promotion
a
Community SW Educational Programs
■ School Recycling Program -SWAP Grant
2
EDA Business Assistance - RLF
■ CDBG Economic Development
■
Solid Waste E- Newsletter
Set -Aside "ALB- GOLD" Bionade (Amana)-
E
Single - Family Housing New Construction
■ Clear Creek Amana School SW Education
■
Land Use Plan Review
Programs
0
Business Rental Assistance Program
■ EDA Grant Application
0
Expanded Business Rental Assistance Program
■ FHLB Application
Z
Equipment Reimbursement Assistance Program
PAGE 6
■ Loan Interest Supplemental Program City of Cedar Rapids
■ Commercial Rental Revenue Gap Program ■ Summer Library Reading Program
■ Flood Insurance Reimbursement Program Landfill, &,Rec- ycling Presentations to various groups
■ Daycare SW Educational Programs
JONES COUNTY School SW Educational Programs
City of Anamosa Community SW Education Programs
■ Summer Library Reading Program 2 EDA Project Administration - Mercy Medical Center /CRACC
■ School Recycling Presentations 0 EDA Application Assistance - St. Luke's Hospital, Mercy
St t E h men+ A lication Medical Center, CRACC
■ a e n once pp
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Center Point
■ CDBG Supplemental Flood Infrastructure
■ Summer Library Reading Program
Grant
Comprehensive Plan Update
■ Solid Waste E- Newsletter
■ School SW Education Programs
■ " Community SW Educational Programs
Single Family New Construction
City of Center Junction
City of Coggon
■ CDBG Administration - Water
Summer Library Reading Program
City of Martelle
City of Hiawatha
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
Summer Library Reading Program
City of Monticello
SW Policy Assistance
■ School Recycling Presentations
City of Lisbon
■ Summer Library Reading Program
Summer Library Reading Program "
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
Housing Fund Application
City of Olin
City of Marion
■ Summer Library Reading Program
Summer Library Reading Program
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
EDSA,Administration
■ School SW Educational Programs '`
■' Schobi SW Educational Programs
■ CDBG Administration - Housing
CDBG Administration - Housing
City of Oxford Junction
City of Mount Vernon
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
■ Summer Library Reading Program
■ Codification
City of Palo
■ CDBG Application - Water (Phase 2)
■ Comprehensive Plan
■ CDBG Administration - Water (Phase T')
CDBG Supplemental iFlood Infrastructure Grant
City of Wyoming
Single - Family New Construction
■ Summer Library Reading Program
Smart Planning Grant Application
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Springville
■ CDBG Administration - Water
■ Summer Library Reading Program
■ CDBG Administration - Childcare
■ Zoning Ordinance Update
Jones County
Board of Adjustment Application Review
■ ' CDBG Administration - Wastewater
Planning and Zoning Workshop
■ FHLB /AHP Administration
Cedar Rapids /Linn County Solid Waste Agency
■ FHLB Application
ff Environmental Management Systems Pilot Project
■ SW Commission Advisory Committee
Assistance
■ SW Policy Assistance and Research
.,ISOSWO Award Nomination
i rnv9fill SprvicPC Priticotion & Promotion
AdministerCommunity Partnership Grant Program
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
■ EDA Business Assistance - RLF
■ Solid Waste 28E Agreement Update
■ Solid Waste E- Newsletter
■ Housing Trust Fund Administration
■ Smart Planning Grant Application
■ Business Rental Assistance Program
■ Expanded Business Rental Assistance
Program
■ Equipment Reimbursement Assistance
Program
■ Loan Interest Supplemental Program
■ Commercial Rental Revenue Gap
Program
■ Flood Insurance Reimbursement Program
LINN COUNTY
City of Bertram
■ Development Review
• Assist with Landfill Tours
• Community SW Educational Programs
• Biomass Program Promotion
• Serve on committees "tor: Corridor Conservation Coalition;
New Bohemia Eco -Arts Fest; Cedar Rapids Museum
Education Group
Linn County
■ Public Education Assistance
■ Housing Trust Fund for Linn County
■ FHLB Applications
■ SHTF Application
■ EDA Business''Assistance - RLF
• I -JOBS Courthouse and Correctional Center
Application
• Business Rental Assistance Program
• Expanded Business Rental Assistance Program
`Equipment Reimbursement Assistance Program
■ Loan Interest Supplemental Program
■ Commercial Rental Revenue Gap Program
PAGE 7
• Flood Insurance Reimbursement Program ■ Solid Waste Comprehensive Planning
■ Solid Waste E- Newsletter ■ Staff Solid Waste TAC
TAMA COUNTY ° '
"Presentations to State learner uonrerence
City of Chelsea
Prepare Form E for SWAP Applications
■ Summer Library Reading Program
Iowa Waste Exchange Administration
City of Gladbrook
Community Development
■ - Summer Library Reading Program
EDA CEDS Plan
City of Dysart
GIS
■ Summer Library Reading Program
0
Trails Plan Maps
City of Tama
■
Long Range Transportation Plan Maps
■ Summer Library Reading Program
0
Passenger Transportation Plan Maps
■ Daycare SW Educational Programs
E
Washington County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
■ Community SW Educational Programs
Plan Maps
City of Toledo
■
Housing Needs Assessment Maps
■ Summer Library Reading Program
■
CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Program Maps
City of Traer
0
Center Point Land Use Maps
■ Landfill Services Education & Promotion
0
Jumpstart Business Assistance Maps
■ Summer Library Reading Program
Transportation/Transit
■ Daycare SW Educational Programs
■
Administration of Regional Transit System
Tama County
0
Staff Assistance to Contracted Transit Providers
■ ' Landfill Services Education & Promotion
0
Annual Consolidated Transit Application
■ Solid Waste E- Newsletter
0
Administration of State & Federal Funding Contracts
■ Recycling Drop off Contract Assistance
N
Prepare Annual Service Agreements
■
Procure' Regional Transit Equipment
WASHINGTON COUNTY
0
Staff Transit Operators'Group
City of Ainsworth
■
Staff Transportation Policy Committee
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
Staff Transportation TAC
City of Brighton
Transportation Planning Work Program
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
Transportation Improvement Program
City of Crawfordsville
Long Range Transportation Plan Update
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
Prepare annual Passenger Transportation Plan
City of Kalona
Prepare Public Involvement Plan
■ Housing Rehabilitation
Trail Plan Update
■ Summer Library Reading /Library Program
E
Regional ITS Implementation
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
•
Coordinate with Metropolitan Planning Organizations
City of Washington
•
Staff Transit Services Review Committee
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
Staff HSTAG
■ CDBG Administration -Housing
Grants: State Trail Fund
City of Wellman
Federal Recreation Trail Program
■ CDBG Administration - Daycare
State Transportation Enhancement
■ CDBG Application - Water /Sewer
y�
Safe Routes to Schools
• CDBG Administration - Water
Iowa
"Association of Regional Councils
■ CDBG Administration - Housing
■
Staff Serves on Board of Directors
EDA Fiscal Agent
Washington County
■ FHLB /AHP Administration II
■ FHLB Application
■ Hazard Mitigation Plan
■ EDA Business Assistance - RLF=
■ Housing Trust Fund Administration
■ Business Rental Assistance Program
• Expanded Business Rental Assistance Program
■ Equipment Reimbursement Assistance Program
■ Loan Interest Supplemental Program
■ Commercial Rental Revenue Gap Program
■ Flood Insurance Reimbursement Program
REGIONAL
Solid Waste Landfills/ Commissions
■ Environmental ManagemenfSystems Pilot
Iowa Recycling Association;
• Staff Serves oh Board of Directors
• SMRF Application Assistance — EPA Grant & REAP CEP
Grant
■ Grant Application Assistance
■ Education Committee
Iowa Conservation Education Coalition
• Staff Serves on Board of Directors
• Conference Planning
General Public and Other Organizations
• Educational Presentations
• Information Provision & Referral
■ Planning & Zoning Workshops & Training
■ Continuum of Care
■ Regional City Clerk's Workshop
■ Cedar River Watershed Coalition
PAGE 8
Save the dates!
In cooperation with the Corridor Business Alliance, ECICOG is conducting a
public planning process to create a comprehensive regional development
strategy. Public officials, business and nonprofit representatives, and
interested members of the public are encouraged to attend one or more of the
meetings /events below in order to participate in this exciting planning process.
There is no cost to attend these meetings but an RSVP to
tracy.dekotet@ecicog.org is appreciated
February 8
12:00 pm
Monticello Renaissance Center
220 East First Street, Monticello
Presented in cooperation with the Jones County Economic Development
Commission
February 9
3:00 pm
Washington Public Library
115 W Washington St., Washington
Presented in cooperation with the Washington Economic Development
Group
February 16
6:30 pm
Kirkwood Community College
200 West Street, Williamsburg
Presented in cooperation with the Iowa County Economic Development
Commission
February 23
6:00 pm
Blairstown Community Center
305 Locust St NW, Blairstown
Presented in cooperation with the Benton Economic Development Group
Regional Economic Development Summit
(Watch for registration and agenda details!)
April 7
8:00 am — 2:00 pm
Hotel at Kirkwood Center
7725 Kirkwood Blvd. SW, Cedar Rapids
Sponsored by Kirkwood Community College
February 10 ECICOG Solid Waste TAC Meeting, University of Iowa,
E G
EAST CENTRAL IOWA
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
YOUR REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
PAGE 9
Iowa City, 1:00 p.m.
February 21
ECICOG offices closed in observance of President's Day
holiday
February 24
ECICOG Board of Directors Meeting, ECICOG Offices,
70016 th Street NE, Cedar Rapids, 1:00 p.m.
March 3
ECICOG Transit Operators Group Meeting,
Benton County Transportation, 205 Second Avenue,
Vinton, 10:00 a.m.
March 10
ECICOG Solid Waste TAC Meeting, Location TBA,
1:00 P.M.
March 31
ECICOG Board of Directors Meeting, ECICOG Offices,
700 16 `h Street NE, Cedar Rapids, 1:00 p.m.
E G
EAST CENTRAL IOWA
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
YOUR REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page I of 25
MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
JANUARY 5, 2011 IN 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Work Session Regarding Key Issues, Such as Location, Financing and use of Current Facilities, to be
Considered in Planning for a Future Justice Center ................................................... ............................... 1
Group # 1: Summary of Priorities ................................................... ............................... 5
Group #2: Summary of Priorities ................................................... ............................... 6
Group #3: Summary of Priorities ................................................... ............................... 7
Discussion about Downtown Location ........................................... ............................... 9
Reuseof the Courthouse ............................................................ ............................... 19
Funding Options: Question of a Joint Facility ................................ ............................... 21
Funding Options: Question of a Legislative Change ...................... ............................... 23
Funding Options: Question of Bonding 25
Purchase of Houses on Capitol Street ......................................... ............................... 26
Vacation/Use of Harrison Street ................................................. ............................... 28
RemainingIssues ....................................................................... ............................... 29
Other.................................................................................................... ............................... 31
SetNext Meeting Date .......................................................................... ............................... 32
Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County
Health and Human Services Building at 5:06 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil,
Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members present were: Department of Corrections
Supervisor Jerri Allen, MECCA Director Ron Berg, Citizen Representative Bob Elliott, Iowa City
Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden, County Attorney Janet Lyness, Iowa State Bar
Association Representative James McCarragher, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, District Court Judge
Douglas Russell, Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton, and Consultation of
Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston. Staff present: Board of Supervisors Executive
Assistant Andy Johnson and Auditor's Office Recording Secretary Nancy Tomkovicz.
WORK SESSION REGARDING KEY ISSUES, SUCH AS LOCATION, FINANCING AND USE
OF CURRENT FACILITIES, TO BE CONSIDERED IN PLANNING FOR A FUTURE
JUSTICE CENTER
Former University of Iowa Campus Planner and Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC)
Facilitator Larry Wilson said since the group knows everyone, they will skip introductions. He said the
CJCC and the Board of Supervisors hope to achieve three goals tonight: 1. Reach agreement on major
issues in order to move the project forward; 2. Where there are differences on major issues, determine
what information is needed to move the project forward; and 3. Establish the target parameters, such as
the location of the criminal justice center, the general amount of space needed, and the target cost in
order to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a design consultant. He said they do not have to
decide on all the final answers tonight, but rather an agreement on a general idea at this preliminary
stage, realizing that later this work group will be going through more detail in the schematic design.
Wilson said he has a neutral role as the facilitator; he has no agenda. He will try to introduce
questions for the CJCC's consideration. He is not trying to guide the discussion in a particular direction,
but rather to assist in covering important issues and get them out on the table, if they do not arise
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 2 of 25
naturally. First the group will divide up by count into three breakout sessions. For the first 15 minutes
each group will consider the key issues listed on the handout. After 15 minutes, each group should try
to select the top five issues and select one person to present those to the entire group later tonight. The
idea is not to have solutions to the issues, but to identify the most important issues for the discussion
process. Eventually everything on the list will be discussed, if not tonight, maybe in a future session, if
needed.
Wilson said the breakout session should last about 25 minutes. Then, everyone will regroup and one
person from each breakout session will report their top priority issues and why they were chosen. After
hearing everyone speak about their important issues, CJCC members will vote on the top four or five
issues to begin discussions on. People will vote using colored dots. Executive Assistant Andy Johnson
said a red dot is worth three points, a green dot is worth two, and a yellow dot is worth one point.
Wilson said he will go over this with the group again later. A person can put all their dots on one issue
if they think it is really important, or spread the dots out over any issues. Wilson said during the dinner
break he will tally the dots and rank order the priorities for discussion after the break.
Wilson said there were several questions about space not being included in the space analysis done
by Novak Design Group Architect Jim Novak. Wilson said he told Novak that people asked why certain
spaces were not included. Wilson said Novak told him that Novak listened to people at the last CJCC
Meeting and after that, he made a worksheet with additional spaces added in but has not yet sent the
worksheet out. Today, the CJCC and the Board were emailed an addendum to the space analysis report.
Wilson said Novak said he thinks the addendum has everything of significance that has been
mentioned to date, and a contingency amount of space to cover some things that might not have been
thought of. The important thing is that this is a preliminary report and the people will have another
chance to go through the space analysis to hammer out the details. At that time, CJCC members will
discuss details of how the spaces fit together and how the spaces fit on the site.
Wilson said the next move is to break out into small group discussions. He said Johnson, Facilities
Manager David Kempf, and Wilson will try to answer any questions and make sure that everyone meets
their 15 minute time allotment for this portion of the small group discussion. Johnson clarified that
everyone will get a copy of the key issues worksheet to take to the discussion. Wilson said everyone
should hold onto this worksheet because it is also their ballot, which is where each person will stick their
dots.
Rettig asked if people are expected to talk about all the key issues during the breakout sessions.
Wilson said yes, the idea is to enrich each other in terms of everyone's understanding of the issues and
to get a feel as to what is important to different people. Then, each group will come up with their top
priorities. As each breakout group reports back to the entire group later, Wilson will record the
feedback and generate three sets of lists, which is what will be voted on. Sullivan asked if a group can
write in something if they think it is more important than all of the things listed. Wilson said the
worksheet he is passing out now includes all the key issues that have been voiced so far. He asked the
group if there are any major key issues that do not appear on the worksheet.
District Court Judge Doug Russell asked if the work group is assuming that they are talking about
one facility for both the proposed jail and the proposed courthouse, and that is not a matter for debate.
Wilson said yes, they are assuming that it is one facility. Citizen Representative Bob Elliott asked if
there is anything, other than the parking area, over which the County does not have authorization to
move ahead on. He said it seems like the County has been waiting all this time to get approval from the
Federal government. Wilson said the CJCC has a lot of what ifs, such as what if the County got this or
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 3 of 25
that piece of property. He said for now, to keep this process moving forward, the group should consider
the site to be what the County owns now.
Rettig said the County does not have Iowa City City Council approval to vacate Harrison Street, but
the County does have informal nods and head shakes that the City Council would not have a problem
with that. She asked if the assumption is that vacation is possible. Wilson said the assumption he is
going to propose for this session is that the County -owned property is the land: the three houses, the Jail
site, and the existing Courthouse land. He said he is also assuming, because Iowa City has seemed to be
in a cooperative mood and will work with the County, that for now people should assume the County
can have the Harrison Street property. He said the site is the land around the Courthouse, Harrison
Street, the three houses, and the existing Jail.
Wilson said he talked to Novak today and reaffirmed that Novak believes the full program for the
proposed criminal justice center can be built on that amount of land. If the County ends up getting more
land, then the facility can spread out and not have to go up so high, which will reduce costs. The facility
can perhaps get better space configuration, because there will be more land to work with. It might allow
for more parking on site. He said those things are for future consideration. After the CJCC gets into the
schematic design, these kinds of issues can be investigated, such as how much land is actually needed to
build a jail and for future expansion, and where to put parking. Those are details that will be fleshed out
as the group gets into schematic design.
Wilson said the question about parking today is how much parking is necessary to have on site.
There might be three different answers: just enough parking to service the proposed jail and courthouse
functions plus visitors, just enough parking to have a few visitor parking spots and a few extra for
general or important staff, or enough parking for everybody on site. He said having everybody park on
site will require a ramp of some sort. However, there might be ways to provide less parking on site and
put the rest of the parking somewhere else, which will be determined later. He said tonight's discussion
should focus on the general issue, not the specifics of exactly how many parking stalls.
Sullivan said this group took a vote on this issue several months ago. One key issue that might be
missing from the worksheet is "method of funding." Stratton said he thinks that is included in item #12
"additional /alternative funding sources to reduce bonding." Sullivan said #12 assumes bonding, which
this group did vote for, but that does not mean everyone agrees with it. Wilson said the group may not
have to decide how to fund the project at this time because they do not know for sure what they are
trying to fund. Some people said there is an amount they will not exceed, like $50 million. He said
what if they all learn that they cannot build a workable criminal justice center for $50 million. Or what
if they learn that for $40 million, a first phase of the project can be built that will solve the problems for
the next 10 or 15 years, and then there is space for future expansion. Once more information is available
and more decisions are made, maybe the parameters of that dollar amount will come out, and then the
CJCC can consider funding options. Iowa Bar Association Representative (IBA) James McCarragher
asked why the group does not just name #12 "funding." Wilson agreed and said there is a definite
prejudice the way he wrote it originally. He asked everyone to change that on their worksheet.
Rettig said she thinks item nine, "project cost public will accept," should just be "project cost."
What the public will accept may be higher or lower than what one is comfortable spending. Item #9
assumes that the County will be willing to do whatever the public will accept. Wilson said that is on
there because at least one Board member had suggested a limit the individual would not go beyond.
Wilson chose not to identify that limit on the worksheet. He said when the group gets down to
discussing that issue, someone might say that they will not know what that number is until the public is
surveyed.
http: / /www.j ohnson- county. com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 4 of 25
Stutsman said the Committee has talked about phasing the justice center and not doing the project all
at once. She asked if that would be part of the discussion. Wilson said that is a detail the group cannot
resolve until the total cost of the project is known. Generally, the group thinks the County has the
amount of space that will make it work. The CJCC can get some general costs, provided by Novak,
based on square footage, but no one will really know what the costs are until the process gets into the
schematic design phase. When the project gets into the schematic design phase and the group starts
talking about the space needed, the group might have to pare back on some of these things in order to
get the costs down. It is the role of the hired consultant to work the group through possible scenarios.
The list of issues is written with the idea that those types of details will surface during the schematic
design phase where everyone will have more input, but after a design consultant would be hired to start
the design. Wilson said at that time, the design consultant could do some preliminary design layouts
showing how the facility would fit on the site, get agreement on the amount of space needed, and start
drafting some pictures of what the facility might look like.
County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said he is not clear about whether there is a group commitment to
building the facility in the downtown location. He said this issue has clearly been voted on before and
he asked how someone can indicate they are not committed to that location. He asked if someone would
just not vote on that issue or put one of their top colors on it, since everyone is color coding when
voting. Johnson said the small groups are going to be voting on the order the issues are addressed, not
what issues are most important. The vote is not necessarily on the priority of the most important overall
issue; it is on what the group needs to address first.
Wilson said if the location comes up for the first discussion item and the work group starts
discussing it, then the question is if there is someone who does not agree with a downtown location. If
there are some people who disagree with the downtown location, then the group needs to find out why,
and what it would take to determine if they could change their minds. The group would try to list the
issues and later in the week the staff would try to respond to the issues in question. Harney asked if the
breakout session is going to be approximately 25 minutes. Wilson said yes. Harney said they need to be
sure there are no more than two Supervisors in any one of those groups.
Wilson invited members of the audience to participate in the discussion of the breakout groups.
Rettig said she would be happy to have audience members participate in whatever they wanted. Kempf
said group one will meet in Conference Room 203B and 203C of the Health and Human Services
Building (HHS), group two will meet in the Information Technology Department, and group three will
meet in the small conference room.
Recessed at 5:31 p.m.; reconvened at 6:08 p.m.
Group #1: Summary of Priorities
Sullivan said group #1 decided that the first thing to reaffirm was the location. Then, the group went
back and forth between items #2 and #3, but decided item #3, which was what is needed, such as beds
and courtrooms, was the second topic to discuss. The third item the group picked was #9, the cost the
public will accept. The fourth choice was how will it be funded, and the fifth is when will it be voted
upon.
Wilson asked if Sullivan wants to offer any explanations for the reasons behind the choices of group
#1. Sullivan said the group felt as though a lot of the other things were not as important. The group has
to know the location first before talking about parking. The choices for group #1 rose way above any
other choices.
Russell said group #1 wanted to reaffirm things that have been discussed, and thought may have
http: / /www.j ohnson- county .com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 5 of 25
already been decided upon. The group wanted to be sure that, in addition to this being one facility, it
would be downtown and next to the Courthouse. Then, the group thought the space needs would be
determinative of all of the funding questions and the size questions. So, the group wanted to focus on
that. The second priority is a combination of items #2 and #3. The cost the public accepts was a
concept of polling and getting some guidance to see if there is a drop -off point. As Sullivan said, this
was done with the Conservation referendum, to get some sense of the politics of the matter, and what the
County should be looking at as a practical matter. The fourth item on funding was to try and arrive at
consensus on the Board about whether it will be bonding only, or whether the County will go off on side
tangents. If the side tangents are not really practical, then the County should perhaps just focus on the
bonding. The fifth item, which Neuzil brought up, was a very good one. That is the idea that when the
County makes a decision about timing of the ballot initiative, then there is a framework for scheduling
all of the other tasks and priorities. That is why that item was included in group #1's top priorities.
Group #2: Summary of Priorities
Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton said group #2 has the items listed in rank
order. The group felt that the Courthouse reuse was a crucial issue. In discussing it, the group felt that
there was no way to avoid reusing the Courthouse, save supporting it as another kind of entity. Clearly,
it would be much more cost efficient to incorporate the Courthouse into the justice center facility. The
group also felt it would be difficult to ignore the Courthouse in the justice center project. Cost was a
major condition, such as how much the County could afford, how much the public would be willing to
support, and how much Supervisors would be willing to support. In a sense, a lot of the issues are
interconnected. However, the circle has to be broken into in some place to say that this is where it is
going to start and then go from there. Stratton said cost seems to be a very basic issue, which the
County cannot really get away from. They ranked the justice center location, adjacent to the Courthouse
or elsewhere, as 0. The group felt there were some possible cost advantages to going elsewhere.
However, in terms of supporting things, like downtown renewal and the downtown business community,
and in terms of getting political support from various interest groups, this issue has to be decided. The
group felt that downtown would be the most desirable location. That is a crucial issue.
Stratton said, for issue #4, the group felt that the County needs to acquire the four houses on Capitol
Street that have not been acquired yet. This is going to be key land. If the County does ultimately
decide not to use the houses, it would not be land sold at a loss, given what is going on in the south part
of town. So, this would also avoid an argument or discussion around redesign. If the County owns it,
then the County can design the project to include the land. If the County does not own the land, then
that option is taken away.
Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen asked if there was mention of a possible
alternative location and what the discussion was surrounding that topic. Stratton said group #2 did not
talk about specific locations, but the only pertinent discussion was about whether the County would have
a large land area away from the downtown. Then, it would be possible for the facility to spread out,
rather than to be built up. It would be cheaper to do that, and future expansion would not be limited. No
other sites were discussed.
Group #3: Summary of Priorities
County Attorney Janet Lyness said group #3 actually combined #1 and #4 for their first priority.
The justice center location adjacent to the Courthouse and the Courthouse reuse seem to go together.
The group considered reusing the Courthouse and having it downtown were both essential to public
support. There were no other plans to reuse the Courthouse. If someone opposes reusing the
Courthouse or having the justice center facility downtown, then the CJCC needs to know that before
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01_05_inf -j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 6 of 25
going forward. It is essential for the CJCC to make a decision on that and make it clear that that is
where the facility is going to be, so that it is not reconsidered sometime in the future. There was also a
study done by University of Iowa Political Science Professor David Redlawsk, which showed that there
was support for the justice center facility if the Courthouse was reused and there was no support if the
Courthouse was not reused. While it was not a definitive study on everything, there was some
indication that the Courthouse reuse would be essential.
Lyness said group #3 did not really rank the options, but another top priority was the space analysis.
This is important to make sure that everything the County wants to have included in the justice center is
included in the justice center. It could be including treatment alternatives and making sure there are
adequate security and safety provisions. The County needs something to show the public what is being
done with the justice center. There was a discussion about how the County needs to make sure that any
facility that is built is built with the future in mind. For example, the current Jail did not include space
for having jail alternative kinds of things, and the current Courthouse was not built with security
measures in mind. The County needs to be forward thinking, so the space analysis would be essential.
Lyness said the other issue is #9, the project cost that the public will accept. Group #3 also felt like
the issue is not only what the public will accept, but also what the CJCC members will accept. If there
is an amount that the public or internal individuals will not accept to go above for the cost of the facility,
then it needs to be identified quickly. There is no point in doing the project if the cost is going to be
something that can never be attained, so it needs to be clarified.
Lyness said the group also felt the funding issue was important. If the County chooses to go with
bonding or a sales tax, then the County needs to make clear that everyone is on board with that. If
someone is not on board with that, then the County needs to identify why not, if it is going to change, or
are there time frames on it. There is no point in trying to go forward while not knowing if there is going
to be support for whatever funding mechanism is chosen. So, if it is bonding, then the County needs to
know that people will support bonding. If it is a sales tax, then the County needs to know that everyone
will support a sales tax. There needs to be unanimity with whatever is chosen.
Pulkrabek wanted to know if group #3 discussed what could occur if poll results showed that the
public would tolerate $50 million. He asked if there is the possibility that other people would not
support putting $50 million forward on a bond referendum. Lyness said that is what group #3 wanted to
know. If there is a difference between what the public would support versus what someone internally
would support, then the County needs to know. There is no point in asking the public if they would
support $60 million, if there are people internally that would never agree with going over $40 million.
Sullivan said he assumes that Lyness is talking about elected officials when she speaks of internal
people. That would be Lyness, Pulkrabek, and the Supervisors. Pulkrabek mentioned that it would be
just the Board members. Lyness said the Board members are the ones with the vote. Rettig asked if
Pulkrabek and Lyness will support a blank check. Pulkrabek said Lyness and he do not get a vote. He
said he wants all ten elected officials on board with the justice center project. He does not think the
County can afford to have an elected official working against the project. Everyone needs to be in
agreement.
Harney said group #3 did not rank order the key issues. The group felt that those were the top five
items that need to be addressed before moving forward. Sullivan said even though group #3's list is not
necessarily in priority order, it matches exactly with the first four from group #1. Wilson said there is
more continuity than he expected.
Wilson said the individual groups have had a chance to talk over what is important and why. Now,
it is time to vote. He said Johnson has handed out a list of all of the key issues. He said each member
http: / /www.johnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011_01_05_inf - -j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 7 of 25
can vote for anything on the list, not just what has already been identified by the groups. Whatever does
not surface to be the top four, five, or six issues will eventually be discussed. A low priority will not
kick a topic off the list of key issues, but it will postpone the topic to be discussed later. Elliott asked if
a red dot sticker is for an individual's first choice, green is for the second choice, and yellow is for the
third. Wilson said yes, it is a weighted system. Rettig asked if all the dots can be put on one topic.
Wilson said yes, a person could do that. He asked the members to hand in their worksheet before going
to eat, because the voting will be tallied during the dinner recess.
Recessed at 6:24 p.m.; reconvened at 6:55 p.m. Absent: Stutsman.
Wilson wrote the priorities, as rank ordered by the group, on a chart for everyone to view. He asked
if there are any surprises in the outcome of the voting.
Discussion about Downtown Location
Wilson said, to try to simplify the discussion, is anyone against the Courthouse location. Elliot said
in his group discussion people agreed that the word "adjacent" is a pretty flexible word. Adjacent means
to him, anything within a one or two block area and he is assuming that is what is meant by adjacent.
Wilson said the site that is being considered now is land the County already owns. All of what the
County owns is considered adjacent and he asked if anyone disagrees with that interpretation. The idea
is whether anyone is against using the property the County owns around the Courthouse. Rettig said she
is not against it. However, she thinks there is not consensus. She said there is probably not unanimous
consensus among the ten elected officials. Wilson said it seems to be unanimous within the elected
officials at the current meeting. He asked how a consensus can be reached among all of the elected
officials. McCarragher said another way to ask the question is to ask what people have heard that makes
someone not think that is a good idea. Rettig said one reason is the high cost, and the land is too
valuable. She said she does not share that opinion. Another reason is that it is a bad use of land and
should be put on land that is not as valuable.
Wilson said he believes none of the Board or CJCC members present are against it, but there might
be other elected officials, not present at the meeting, who would be. Harney said he made the comment
that he supports having it in the downtown area. However, if it would not move forward and the County
could not get a bond issued, then they would have to reconsider. Wilson said what is being considered
is the land the County owns. If the County finds out that something about the land does not work when
getting into the design of the facility, then the group has to reconsider it. At this point, the group does
not know enough to know that it will not work. Novak has advised that he thinks it will work, based on
the information the County has at this time. The question is how to get the additional buy -in from the
other elected officials. He asked if the CJCC should hold a meeting with the elected officials.
Neuzil said there have been a few comments about breaking points. He said it would be nice to get
reassurance, fairly often, that everyone is still on board. He reminded the group of the reality that each
elected official is not going to get their way with everything he or she wants; everyone is going to have
to compromise. He thinks that is the best approach for everyone. One thing that has been determined
for sure though is that the County cannot pay for the project without voter approval.
Neuzil said that the question of whether everyone wants the justice center facility downtown has
probably been voted on three or four times. If the group has to vote on it during every single meeting,
then that is fine. Every elected official needs to state their position publicly and then keep the project
moving forward.
Whiston asked if anyone thinks that other sites need to be considered before moving forward.
http: / /www.j ohnson- county .com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 8 of 25
Wilson asked if there are any concerns about going forward with the current proposed site. Harney said
he does not have any concerns about it. He said he has not heard anyone else say that they have
concerns. He does not know who is being talked about that may not be supportive. Wilson said he has
not heard anything either. He said he is keeping a tally of Board members that are for or opposed, and
he has each down for a yes.
Neuzil said the CJCC was at this point two years ago, and there were Supervisors that started
looking at other locations. He said he wants to know if everyone is ready to make downtown the
location, again. There is no reason to start exploring other locations if the downtown site is the location
to pursue over the next two years. Elliot said he was very interested in the Iowa City Press - Citizen site,
but the group voted against it and he says it is time to move on. Neuzil said yes, but that diversion cost
about ten months of progress. Elliot asked why it should have cost that much time; he said he does not
agree that the diversion cost ten months. Neuzil said it did. Elliott said he does not see anything wrong
with considering something, but once a vote is recorded and decisions are made, then people should
move on and stop wishing it was something else. He said he is happy that progress is moving on.
Sullivan said the CJCC voted before that and after that. There have been about four votes. Wilson said
this vote is going to get recorded. Lyness said group #3 talked about how it would be nice to have a
checklist of some sort to document when decisions are made. That way, everyone can understand that
something has already been decided upon and the CJCC does not have to keep revisiting topics.
Wilson said he is recording the decision that everyone is in agreement with the downtown site. He
said he wanted to go back to a question that was raised. The CJCC is not sure of the positions of the
elected officials not present at the meeting. Therefore, does the group want to find out, or can they go
on without knowing. Neuzil said he thinks the CJCC has to continue to move forward. With Stutsman's
absence from the meeting now, which Neuzil said he is unaware of why she is absent, it would be nice
to know the County Recorder, County Auditor, and County Treasurer are also on board. The CJCC
needs to have agreement from the five Supervisors for the ballot referendum. Wilson said the
Committee is going to move forward, but would like to know what the other elected officials think. He
asked how to obtain that information.
Pulkrabek said everyone believes that this is the key issue, and now Stutsman has left the meeting.
He asked how the group can move beyond this point if they cannot lock down the downtown location of
the site, if they cannot definitively say that every elected official at the meeting is committed to it, and if
the group cannot ask the other elected officials whether they will commit to it. He said he is suddenly
feeling a little frustrated. Wilson proposed that the Committee follow up by directly asking Stutsman,
since she is not currently present at the meeting, if she is for or against the downtown location. If she is
against it, then what are her reasons. He said her response will be recorded in the meeting notes and at
least, that way the Committee will know where all of the Board members stand. It kind of puts
Stutsman on the spot, but at least the Committee will know.
Stratton said a lower level of commitment would be to not publicly support it, but not publicly be
against it either. Wilson said he is asking a direct question. Sullivan said the five Board members do
not get the choice to do Stratton's suggestion. That choice is an option available to Lyness or Pulkrabek,
but the five Board members will be forced to vote. Rettig replied to Stratton by saying that there is a
difference. A person can vote to put the question on a ballot, can have a philosophical point of view that
the voters have a right to vote on a topic, but still be against it personally. She said Stratton's question is
if a person votes to put it on the ballot and is still personally against it, then is that person still able to
stay neutral. Stratton said correct. Rettig said the question is whether this is such a deal breaker that a
person would feel the need to talk against it. That is a different question than whether a person would
vote to put it on a ballot.
http: / /www. j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf - -j - min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD 0... Page 9 of 25
Sullivan said with any of the three major issues, when the public sees the Board of Supervisors
divided, that raises questions in their mind and the default position is to be against whatever is
proposed. It is really important to be unanimous to avoid instilling any doubt with the public. Stratton
said he agrees with that. It would be unfortunate for one elected official to be against it, so the rest of
the elected officials have to concede to give what that person wants. Wilson said the premise of
tonight's Work Session is to get agreement, or to try to find out the reasons why there is not agreement
and address those issues to get agreement.
Russell said the Board members should say yes or no, whether they each support this or not. He said
he does not mean whether the Board members answer the question of whether they will vote to put the
justice center on the ballot versus whether they support actually building the justice center. The
question is whether each Board member is for the justice center project and whether each Board member
will support it through the steps that the bond issue is going to take. Rettig asked if Russell can answer
the same questions; she asked if Russell will campaign for the justice center. Russell replied that he is
limited by his position in what he can do; whenever he is called upon to give information about the
Courthouse and the Courthouse needs, he will do so. However, he cannot politic in the way that others
can. Rettig said Russell cannot politic on partisan issues, but asked him if he is disallowed from
expressing his views on ballot issues. Russell said he feels he is in more of an advisory position than an
advocacy position.
Neuzil said he feels Supervisors will be in a similar situation as well, if it is similar to what happened
in 2000. That was when Harney and Neuzil were on the ballot at the same time that the jail issue was
up, which made it an easy question for the press. Harney and Neuzil both answered that they were in
favor of the jail, and both reasoned it was for the safety of inmates and employees. Everyone is going to
be asked about the justice center and the political cop out is always to put the issue on the ballot and let
the people decide. The next step is the question of whether each elected official is going to support the
justice center.
Russell said the Supervisor's five votes are the key votes. It would be very nice if the other elected
officials were also supportive in advocating. If it appears that some of the other elected officials are not
supportive, then the CJCC should invite those elected officials to one of their meetings to have a chat in
the public forum. Russell said he would like to hear the reasons why people may not be supportive and
CJCC members can try to change their minds. Alternatively, maybe those individuals will persuade
CJCC members to think differently; this should be a public discussion. Neuzil said if there is a
Supervisor that is against it, then it would be nice to know early on, because then that Board member
could recuse themselves from this whole process. If there is a breaking point where a Board member
cannot support this criminal justice project, then he is not sure he wants them participating in any other
decisions. Wilson said that is a higher level question than what was being asked at this meeting. He
said the question for this meeting was how to move forward, presuming that everyone, all Board
members in particular, were in favor of moving forward. If there is any question there, then that is
probably the highest level of question to ask.
Wilson asked if there is anyone not in favor of the justice center moving forward as a project. He
said he is hearing that everyone is in agreement. When getting into schematic design, if new
information comes in, then each person may have to rethink their position, but right now the County has
a site that might work based on what is already known. Wilson summarized that the group thinks the
County has the total space needed, or is reasonably close. He then asked, on this preliminary basis, is
anyone opposed to going forward with the project. He said the second part of that question is whether
anyone is against going forward with the downtown Courthouse location. Wilson noted each
Supervisor's acknowledgment to move forward with the project at the downtown location.
http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/min/201 1 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 10 of 25
McCarragher asked how they should go about finding out who is against it. He asked who should be
asking that question. If someone is not present at the current meeting, or if someone is an elected
official and the CJCC is concerned about them, then there needs to be a procedure to find out what that
person thinks. If someone is against it, then the Committee needs to know it and know how to deal with
it.
Wilson said he will follow up with Stutsman and get her opinion as if she had been present at the
meeting. As far as the other elected officials, the CJCC could invite them to another meeting or could
have a delegation talk to them face to face. If there are elected officials opposed, then those people can
be brought into a meeting. He asked if anyone is interested in proposing having the Board appoint
someone to talk to the other elected officials. Lyness recommended that she, Pulkrabek, and maybe a
Board member, talk to the County Treasurer, County Auditor, and County Recorder. Wilson asked
Johnson to record this suggestion as an action item.
Pulkrabek said it would be nice to know which Board member will be willing to do that with them.
Neuzil said he is on the Public Information and Outreach Subcommittee (Public Information
Subcommittee) and would be willing, but also said the CJCC may want to choose the Board
Chairperson. Rettig said County Auditor Tom Slockett and County Treasurer Tom Kriz both serve on
the Funding and Finance Subcommittee, therefore, their knowledge of what is going on is limited to
funding and finance, and to what they read in the newspaper. Neuzil said County Recorder Kim Painter
is writing the safety, security, and space analysis with him. Rettig said it depends on who the CJCC
wants to send. Wilson said he will list that as an action item for the Board to decide.
Neuzil asked if Pulkrabek and Lyness have a preference. Pulkrabek said it does not matter to him.
Rettig said Neuzil just volunteered. Neuzil said that is fine. He said he would like Stutsman to be made
aware of what went on in this meeting after the second recess. Johnson asked if Pulkrabek, Lyness, and
Neuzil will be following up with Stutsman as well. Neuzil said yes, that would be appropriate.
Wilson said the question is not whether the space analysis is perfect, but if the group thinks that the
space is accounted for in the design, understanding a 5% contingency is added in to cover for what may
be missing. Neuzil thanked Whiston for pursuing this space needs issue. He asked for an updated list of
space needs to ensure that everyone is referencing the same document. Neuzil said he was still hopeful
there would have been some prioritization by now. It is not necessary to jot down all needs, but rather
needs over the next five years. Then, when a consultant identifies cost points for the project, it will be
much easier to decide what to phase in later.
Rettig agreed and said she cannot answer if space is adequate without knowledge of whether the
Courthouse will be reused. She said there are certain numbers that she thinks will never pass with the
voters and just because items are identified on the space needs list, does not mean the voters will support
them. She said Neuzil is right, and asked if some of these needs should be phased in at a later time;
what has to be provided immediately, and what can wait another 10 or 15 years to be funded by direct
appropriations. Rettig said no matter the location or the size, if the voters do not think this is a worthy
project, the discussion is over.
Harney said he agrees to a point. However, when he considers how many courtrooms will be
needed, he is concerned about a building being outdated at the outset of the project. He wants to make
provisions for future expansion. Neuzil said absolutely. Even if the voters support only a five -year
budget, that does not mean the County cannot entertain other funding mechanisms, such as reverse bond
referendums, saving money, another tax, or whatever, for future costs.
Russell said Rettig makes a good point about the breaking point on funding being closely
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 11 of 25
intertwined with needs and wants. There is no reason these plans cannot proceed in tandem; each will
inform the other and help lead to final decisions. Elliott said he thinks there are two ways to go about
this. One way is to ask what the needs are, and to plan for those. The other way is to ask how much the
County can afford now, and what they can get for that amount. The first way requires pre - planning for
needs. The other way requires guessing what the public will approve now, and building for that.
Wilson said when discussing adequacy of space needs and Novak's space analysis plus the
addendum, no one is talking about what will be built; that is yet unknown. The discussion in this
preliminary stage pertains to the expected needs. Wilson said it may come to a point where the
consultant and the user group disagree about what space is needed, and in this case, the Board of
Supervisors will have to make the final decision. This will happen at a later stage. Based upon what is
happening with jails across the country and based on the consultant's broad experience, they will present
a realistic recommendation for space needs. If the cost projection is then too high, the consultant will
recommend cutting certain spaces that the consultant thinks may be expendable. However, if the user
group cannot cut out any space, then the recommendation might be to build the facility in phases.
Wilson said the next consideration will be funding the facility, and determining what the public will
support which may be two different things. The public may agree to $30 million and the Board may say
that at a minimum, $40 million is necessary. Then the Board will have to decide if $10 million can be
raised elsewhere, or if $10 million can be cut in spite of the need. Elliott asked how much total square
footage is needed with the current plan. Rettig said 126,512 square feet. Elliott said when multiplying
that number by the construction cost per square foot they are talking about a total cost that is at least
reasonable to consider at this point. Wilson said that different kinds of space will cost different
amounts. Wilson said Novak can categorize different spaces and their associated costs. For example,
jail space would cost more than some other spaces and office space would have a different cost, too.
Elliott said that before spending too much time discussing the cost, it might serve everyone well to
acknowledge if they are at a cost - effective place now and can move forward. Neuzil said he would like
Novak to provide a cost estimate, which includes the revised needs. Wilson said OK, and that they must
ask Novak to include an allocation for the site and one for parking, so that it is a complete cost estimate,
not just the building facility. Harney asked Wilson if he is expecting a cost estimate for just the shell of
the building, because there are so many things that go into the finished building, such as desks. Wilson
said he is sure Novak would make allowances for some furniture. Neuzil said Novak has already done
that; it is in the report that everyone has.
Rettig said 6,500 square feet have been added and Novak's highest price per square foot was $275.
Another consultant in the workgroup she was in said they should estimate $300 per square foot, and in
addition to that, there are costs for equipment. The furniture is $3.5 million, the detention equipment is
$6.2 million, and so the square footage is only part of the cost discussion. At a base level, 6,500
multiplied by $300 would be the cost per square foot for the space. Then, a multiplying effect could be
determined for furniture, in order to come up with a ballpark estimate. Wilson said that is possible, and
if Novak is willing, he could do what he has already done, but add in the additional 6,500 square feet.
Sullivan said doing the quick math that Rettig just did, they are probably looking at a total cost of
$50 million, which is a good enough estimate for the purposes of today's discussion. Rettig said that is
the same number the Finance Committee plugged into the financial analysis four months ago. Wilson
asked if Novak's figures in that report include site development and those types of things. Rettig said it
includes sidewalks, lawn, and landscaping. Wilson said then they can just ask Novak to update his
report with new cost figures, which he thinks Novak would be willing to do. Whiston asked if Novak's
report includes use of the Courthouse. Rettig said yes, the report includes historic restoration and
renovation of the existing Courthouse. Wilson said this is a preliminary estimate based on a lot of
http: / /www.j ohnson - county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 12 of 25
assumptions Novak is making. Today's question is whether these preliminary facts are good enough to
go forward to the schematic design stage where they will be able to get more accurate figures.
Sullivan said he does not expect the report to include the exact cost. He thinks $50 million is going
to be a very close estimate and he is ready to more forward with that. Wilson said the CJCC just needs
to know if they have a ballpark figure to work with. Rettig said $50 million is too high for her. Sullivan
said that is not the issue they are discussing, but rather whether Novak's revised space analysis is
adequate. Rettig said she needs information on prioritization and phasing and she does not think they
need a high - priced consultant to figure that out.
Whiston said that once a consultant is on board, they may say it is more cost effective to build
certain spaces now and other spaces later; this group does not have the expertise to figure that out. She
thinks the consultant should make the phasing decisions. Wilson said it is not as easy as some think to
figure out space allocations in such a large facility; there are shared spaces and overlapping spaces.
Someone with an overview of how it all fits together is very important, because it is not just an assembly
of independent spaces. What the group can do at this point is to verify the $50 million guesstimate with
Novak and then ask the Board if they are willing to support that amount. If not, then the Supervisors
need to state how much they are willing to support. For example, if a Supervisor states that they will
only support a $45 million project, when they hire a consultant they will have to say that their
preliminary estimate says the County needs a $50 million project, but the consultant needs to find a way
to reduce the cost to $45 million.
Pulkrabek said he struggles with prioritizing without knowledge of public opinion. If the public
opinion is that no more than $20 million be spent on the facility, then Pulkrabek's priority is going to
change. He will say they absolutely have to reuse the existing Jail facility and just add some cell space
across the street and possibly add some space to the Courthouse. If they find out the public will tolerate
$50 million, then it will be much easier for Pulkrabek to prioritize.
Neuzil asked Pulkrabek to think about this in terms of how many beds and office spaces will be
needed now, and in five, ten, and 20 years. He said it will be much easier in three to four months from
now, if this is determined now rather than later. Rettig said the answers to those questions are 180 beds
now, and 15% more in one year, and 15% more a year later. Sullivan said according to John Neff, the
bed need increases by five per year. Pulkrabek said the increase is now at seven beds per year, and three
to four years ago it was two and a half beds. Harney said they should move forward with a consultant
and make decisions later about whether cuts will be necessary.
Russell said he thinks that is correct. They need some polling data; they need to talk to elected
officials, determine what the space needs indicate about the probable cost, and then see who is willing to
support what and begin the process of cutting back, redesigning, and phasing. He thinks there will be
flexibility among most constituent groups in response to what is possible, but they do need to get started
with some consensus on an acceptable ballpark figure.
Elliott said that polling results are good for only about six months after the poll is completed. Neuzil
said this is why Group #1 talked about determining an end date. Rettig said she thinks a poll will reveal
a ballpark number of how much people would be willing to raise their taxes to support a new justice
center. She said, just having been through a bond referendum recently, she has a pretty good sense of
public opinion and she knew where their litmus test was; they had a poll which in the end, was about a
year and a half old, but it was almost right.
Rettig said if this is going on the ballot in 2012, they could conduct a poll now that will show what
voters will tolerate. More sophisticated polls are more costly than anyone here is willing to spend and
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 13 of 25
they really have a short shelf life Wilson said there may be a way to carry this vote forward. One way is
for the group to approve the space and location to move forward, but wait until the initial public opinion
poll is completed before actually hiring a consultant. That way, a consultant can be presented with a
realistic dollar amount. Sullivan agreed completely. Neuzil said the CJCC Planning and Objectives
document they all agreed to actually has targeted January 2011 as the month for the Information and
Outreach Committee to begin studying the feasibility of using a communications firm.
Neuzil asked CJCC members to take another look at the Planning and Objectives document,
including the timeline, and really get back to the business of checking off their lists. If this is what it
takes to get people back on track, so be it.
Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden asked what the cost is to the
CJCC of not having this information from the public. She thinks they could get a ballpark figure right
now of what the public will support. Not having this information is becoming a cost to the CJCC by not
letting them move forward. Rettig said that outside of these meetings, she has argued that exact point,
but the problem is that if the government pays for the poll, it is a public record and anyone who wants it
can have it. She said her advice to anyone who cares, is that a political action committee or an
independent body pays for the poll. This is what happened in the Conservation Bond issue, the Trust for
Public Land paid for a poll and no one at the County owned it. As co -chair of that campaign, Rettig did
receive a summary of the poll.
Neuzil said that is a good question to ask; he thinks they are at a stage where they do need some
rough calculations of what they can work with. He asked if the County or an outside organization
should conduct the survey, such as the IBA or a new group of citizens in favor of it. Wilson asked
Rettig for the name of the survey she referred to. Rettig said it was just a preliminary public opinion
poll. Wilson suggested an action item stating that the Board of Supervisors will appoint someone to
pursue inquiring about and managing such a preliminary survey. Rettig disagreed; she is not opposed to
paying for it but does not think the Board of Supervisors should conduct a public opinion poll.
Wilson said he was not suggesting the Board conduct the poll, just that they appoint someone to be
in charge of contacting someone. Sullivan said part of the issue is that the Conservation Bond initiative
to which Rettig is referring had a constituency and so a lot of people donated $25 and $50. The Jail and
Courthouse have a very small constituency. Logsden said she thinks they have a motivated
constituency. Sullivan said they need to raise $10 thousand to $15 thousand dollars and he does not see
that happening.
Rettig replied that the CJCC is an extension of the Board of Supervisors and their task is to figure
out what type of project is needed and to put it on the ballot for the public to decide. It is a totally
different matter who is the political action committee and who is going to campaign for it. The last time
there was a bond initiative, elected officials and County employees were told not to take a position on it
period. From Rettig's point of view, this was a point of contention about what the ethics law actually
says. The law actually says that a governing body can pass a resolution supporting a bond initiative, so
in the Conservation Bond issue, the Board could have passed a resolution. The law says in that
situation, public dollars cannot be used to advocate, but individuals can exercise their freedom of speech
and do whatever they want. She thinks that public opinion polls actually address advocacy, which is
why she thinks it is a bad idea for the Supervisors to conduct a poll.
Wilson summarized that the first priority is to determine the location of the Courthouse. The second
priority is the adequacy of Novak's space analysis report. He thinks he has heard that group members
are all satisfied with it at this preliminary stage but they do want Novak to have all the space identified
and to update the cost estimate accordingly. With that, the next priority seems to be the project cost to
http: / /www.j ohnson - county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j - min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 14 of 25
the public, which group members are mired in now. Wilson summarized that he thinks they need to
gather preliminary public opinion and asked how to go about do that. He would like to assign this task
to someone.
Neuzil said the Public Information Subcommittee is assigned to study the feasibility of using a
communications firm, and an action step should be to determine if this should be funded by the County
or an outside entity. Whiston said it seems to her that if the IBA does not want to pay for it, she does not
think there is another group that will likely pay. Therefore, they either start from scratch to organize a
group which would take at least six months, or the County pays for it. Whiston said they need to remain
transparent throughout this whole process; they need to avoid creating any perception that information is
being withheld. Rettig said that is not what she meant; what she meant is that a poll moves to
advocacy. A poll is not studying space needs, designing a facility and putting it to the voters. A poll
gives political information and she does not think the government should be in that business.
Whiston said the government is in the business of building something the government is responsible
for providing, a jail and a courthouse. Part of the information gathering and decision making process is
to find out what the voters will support. Rettig said that may be Whiston's opinion, but Rettig's opinion
is people do not want Rettig to spend their tax dollars to figure out how to raise taxes. She said that is a
political move, not a government role, but she is just one vote. If four other Supervisors want to spend
money on a poll, they can do that.
Neuzil said the question then is if the majority of the Board votes to spend the money on a poll,
would Rettig, or another supervisor, still continue to support this project. Rettig said sure.
Wilson suggested asking the Public Information Subcommittee to find out the cost for a quick
preliminary public opinion survey. Sullivan and Rettig said that cost would be $10 thousand to $15
thousand. Wilson said OK, then, see if a private entity can be retained. If they cannot, that may just
leave the County to pay for it, but at least they would have exhausted other preferable sources. Rettig
said if a political group cannot fund $10 thousand to $15 thousand for a survey, they will never be able
to fund a campaign. Over $30 thousand was spent on the Conservation Bond issue and their opponents
probably spent double that.
Whiston disagreed. She said there has been a Conservation Movement for decades in this country.
There is no such constituency already organized to build courthouses and jails other than perhaps the
Bar Association. Rettig said Whiston is arguing her point, it still cost them $30 thousand to win the
Conservation Bond referendum by 140 votes. Whiston said, but there are courthouses and jails in every
county in the country. She suggested the Public Information Subcommittee find out if there are private
funding sources interested in the survey.
Harney said he does not think it is a big issue whether the County or someone else does the survey.
Neuzil said the Public Information Subcommittee will take on that charge and report back to the CJCC.
Pulkrabek asked if a private company and the County share the cost of the survey, would it be a public
document. Neuzil and Sullivan said yes, that would be a public document. Rettig said she thinks it
depends upon the questions in the survey.
Wilson said right now, the discussion is about some preliminary decisions to move forward with the
project. He thinks there is agreement on the space analysis, updated with the action items discussed, and
he thinks he is hearing that a preliminary survey could be done quickly to provide a preliminary
indicator at this point. If a private group will not fund the survey, is it important enough to spend
County funds on it. In the meantime, the question to be answered is whether they should proceed with
the schematic design phase before a survey is complete. He thinks the answer is no. Rettig agreed. She
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011_01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 15 of 25
said the last time voters were polled on this issue, they said no to a $20 million Bond referendum on a
proposed justice center.
Wilson asked Johnson to record that the CJCC has agreed to move forward with the space and the
location, but they need some idea of what the voters will support. The Public Information
Subcommittee agreed to work out how to proceed with that. In the meantime, they will not proceed with
schematic design until they have some idea of what the voters will support.
Russell said that is agreeable. He said the Board has to be careful because there is a difference
between gathering data to help make informed decisions and leading the public toward the desired
outcome of the survey. He said he thinks the survey needs to lead the public toward the CJCC's goal.
Rettig said she agrees with Russell and that is what she meant when she said voters are persuadable.
Wilson summarized that all Supervisors except Stutsman have agreed to the space analysis and that
item #9, "cost the public will accept" is to be determined. He said Johnson has also recorded which
action items to pursue to help determine what cost the public will support and one of those steps is to ask
Novak to lay out a plan of action.
Reuse of the Courthouse
Wilson asked if anyone is against reuse of the Courthouse. Neuzil said he is against reuse of the
Courthouse for anything other than administration. He said he would not want a prisoner to enter the
old Courthouse anymore. Lyness said she would disagree with Neuzil. She said the County will have to
do enough renovation that it could be safe to bring prisoners in the Courthouse. She said she would not
make that as a prohibition, but it has to be counted in the calculation. It may turn out that it is not good
to try to bring inmates over to the current Courthouse, because there may be an easier way to do it.
However, it may work out fine, depending on the design of the building. Rettig said she would also
disagree with Neuzil. If there was a building with a secure entrance and the front entrance is no longer
used, then she does not want the courtrooms to be turned into offices or to be ceremonial. There are
different levels of security for different prisoners, inmates, or trials that could still occur there because
they do not need high security.
Neuzil clarified that he does not want prisoners in the existing Courthouse. Lyness asked if he
meant he does not want prisoners housed there. Neuzil said no; he does not want a court hearing with
accused prisoners, wearing prisoner colors, walking in the Courthouse from the Jail. Lyness asked why
not. Neuzil said if that is going to be done, millions of dollars will have to be spent to secure the
existing facility. He said he thought the idea with the justice center was to separate prisoners from the
public. Lyness said that depends on how the-justice center is designed. Neuzil asked how it could be
designed.
Lyness said it depends on how the entrance is made. If the entrance is made through what is
currently the break room and courtroom IA, or through the bottom floor where the County Attorney's
Office is, then there would be ways to have a back entrance and a front entrance. Neuzil asked if there
is a way to have another elevator. Lyness said it depends on what the design is. She said the discussion
does not need to get into the specifics of that right now. Like Rettig said, there are inmates that can be
brought into the Courthouse that do not pose a huge security risk. Neuzil said he keeps hearing about
how the costs associated with updating the existing Courthouse to maximum secure levels and he asked
why anyone would want those inmates in the old building. Lyness said it depends.
Wilson said the discussion should stay more generic at this point. Neuzil said Wilson asked the
question about reuse of the Courthouse. Rettig asked Neuzil if separating inmates from the public is a
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 16 of 25
deal breaker. She asked what if Pulkrabek, Lyness, the judges, and attorneys say that if a secure
entrance is properly designed, prisoners can be moved from the Jail into the old Courthouse and up to
the second floor, and it is only going to be done with certain people. In the rest of the Courthouse, there
are prisoners that are minimum risk. She asked if they can still use the courtrooms.
Wilson suggested restating the question to say does everyone support reuse of the Courthouse if the
uses fit into the building and it can be done in a safe and secure way. Neuzil said thank you. Harney
said he agrees with what Wilson said. However, it is up to the designer. Neuzil said he is looking at it
realistically. If the group wants to take the existing Courthouse and renovate it into courtrooms, then
they should get out their wallets.
Wilson said the meeting is behind on schedule. If going by the original schedule, then there are
about 40 minutes left. Rettig asked if Russell could speak on the topic, because she is curious what he
has to say. Russell said the group's approach is the right one. He said he wants the Courthouse to be
reused, and determining how it will be used will be a part of the design and funding process. Everyone
agrees that one of the premier reasons for this whole process is to have a secure facility. He said the
County has plenty of civil cases also, so all of the courtrooms will be able to be used. It may work out
that the cheapest alternative is to have the criminal cases in the newer part of the justice center and the
civil cases in the older part.
Elliott said there is a great deal of danger in public facilities from people other than those
incarcerated or standing trial. Rettig said in theory, people would be brought in through a secure
entrance. McCarragher said the most important point is that the CJCC is looking at safety and security.
He said Neuzil makes a good point. When the facility is built, the County has to make sure to do so in a
safe and secure manner. It could mean putting'everything into the new building, which may or may not
make sense, because different things can be done in a new building that cannot be done in the old
building. The final schematics need to be governed by safety and security, which Neuzil is looking at.
It is easier to have offices in an area which can be secured and has little traffic, then in a place where
people are shuffling through. He said he agrees with Neuzil to say that courtrooms need to be in a space
that is consolidated, that has high traffic, and where the County can build something in to make it more
secure.
Funding Options: Question of a Joint Facility
Rettig said the Funding and Grants Subcommittee came up with the idea that there are other options
on the bond referendum and that is a joint facility with cities. If a joint facility is done, with multiple
municipalities, then the voters have to get to 50 %, as opposed to 60 %. Since that was uncovered by
Johnson and Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne, because it was how Scott County funded their justice
center, there has been no discussion on whether to have the CJCC and Board Members consider that an
option. The City of Iowa City wants to move their fire department or police department out of City
Hall. She asked, if the City did that, and the timing was right, then would Johnson County be interested
in a joint facility.
Wilson said there are two potential ramifications of that. First, it is going to take time to get that sort
of an agreement. Second, it is going to mean more space. Then, the justice center may enlarge itself to
the point where it is not going to fit on the site. Sullivan said he is against a joint facility for a few
reasons. First, it sets back the timeframe. Second, there are a number of people who voted against the
last jail referendum, in part, because the voters felt Iowa City Police were arresting too many people.
Although that attitude has lessened, there is still some out there. Neuzil said he still thinks that the
police arrest too many people. Sullivan said third, the County has not had great luck when working with
the Iowa City on various projects. He said he cannot imagine going down that path.
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 17 of 25
Rettig said she is not advocating for it. The Funding and Grants Subcommittee was charged with
finding other options, and Claiborne and Johnson came up with this option. If the group does not want
to pursue it anymore, then the option needs to be moved off the table. Pulkrabek said he is prepared to
move it off the table. It is too difficult and would upset the timing. He said he is not sure if he could
convince someone living in Swisher that part of their taxes are not going toward building a new facility
for the Iowa City Police. That is a huge hurdle. The County already has a difficult hurdle trying to get
information out to help people understand the need for a justice center. He said he does not want to
complicate it anymore.
Neuzil agreed with Pulkrabek and said he is going to throw something wild and crazy out for
thought. If they start getting feedback that residents do not have a lot of desire to put money into a
justice center, and the County starts thinking about potential alternatives, then the County starts thinking
about the priorities of the Courthouse, the Jail, and the Sheriff's Office; potentially those are three
separate things in different locations. Then, the question is if the County should work with the Iowa
City and the Sheriff to share a building somewhere else. As far as today's discussion, he said he agrees
with everything said so far. Even though it is attractive to look at combining these services and facilities
and needing a 50% favorable vote, rather than a bond issue, which requires a 60% favorable vote,
Pulkrabek is right, because it is complicated to get Iowa City in on the project without muddying the
water.
Rettig said she is neutral on the issue. She said she would be willing to consider it, but the City has
not formally approached the County. In general, despite the most recent experiences, she is in favor of
joint projects. She said she believes in regional government. Sullivan said someone has to be in
charge. Rettig said she understands. Sullivan said one person has to be the buyer and one person has to
be the seller. That is not the arrangement now, which makes it difficult. Now, there is co- ownership.
Neuzil said there are space problems. If the University of Iowa (UI) said the County can have their
section of the parking lot, so that it surrounds everything, then the County is looking at the ability to
have enough space to combine a whole justice center that would include the Iowa City Police
Department, the fire trucks, and Ambulance. Rettig added that it could include the UI Public Safety. By
saying neutral, that does not mean it cannot be taken off of the table. If everyone else says they are done
and it has been talked about enough, then she will put the idea to rest.
Wilson asked if anyone would be interested in a compromise position, inviting another entity to buy
into the project. Sullivan said he is afraid that going down that path will take the County's eye off of the
ball. Lyness said Iowa City City Council Member and CJCC Member Connie Champion, has served on
this committee for years. If Iowa City was interested in such a venture, Lyness thinks Champion would
have said something by now. Lyness said she agrees with Sullivan; exploring this is wasting even more
time. Wilson asked Johnson to note that there is consensus that the justice center be a County project.
Harney said he understands what Pulkrabek is saying, but if Iowa City is willing to put money into it
and pay for their space, then he is not opposed to it. Things could be shared, such as records keeping,
fingerprinting, and booking, if the city will pay their way. If not, then the County would need to go
another route. Wilson asked how to resolve this issue. Harney said at one time, the County discussed
this with Iowa City and even though Iowa City was interested, the County did not pursue anything
further since planning had not advanced thus far. If it will not work, then it will not work. However, the
County needs to reach out to make the offer. Wilson said if Harney thinks they need to reach out to
Iowa City, his suggestion is to set a timeframe for action. Sullivan said now, all of a sudden, the County
does not control the timeframe anymore. Now, Iowa City controls the timeframe. Harney said no.
Sullivan said the County would be waiting on someone else. It is five years passed time to move
forward and he does not want to see another thing delay this.
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 18 of 25
Elliott said he does not think asking the question has anything to do with the timeframe. The CJCC
would have to know the answer by a certain time, and up until that time, everything is open. He said
Pulkrabek raised the most crucial point; unless Iowa City is ready to put quite a bit of money into it, then
he does not see any reason to ask County residents to do something for Iowa City. Sullivan said there
are a lot of reasons not to pursue this. It is taking the eye off of the ball and this is another Iowa City
Press - Citizen moment. He asked the CJCC not to do that. The group should move forward. Elliott said
during the Press - Citizen moment Sullivan kept saying that everything else was held up, but it should not
have been held up. The County moves forward; there is a point of no return. The County can keep
considering things until the timeline comes to the point of no return. Sullivan said he has told everyone
many times to move forward, but it did not happen.
Wilson said there might be a way to not hold up the timeline, if the group wants to pursue this
option. Sullivan said he does not think the CJCC is capable of doing that. He said the group has not
demonstrated that the group can do that. Exploring the option would be a costly distraction and a bad
move. Whiston said she thinks the CJCC is at that place. If the County is going to open the project up
to having the Jail, or anything else in it, then all of the space needs is a moot point. Sullivan said
because all of a sudden Iowa City has different needs and wants. Whitson said the County would either
start over with a completely new project, or go ahead with what they have worked on to date.
Harney asked if the consensus is to not include Iowa City. McCarragher said such a joint venture is
going to create real space problems in an area where space is already a concern. He said that now, the
CJCC is not even sure if the vote taken a few hours ago at this meeting is going to be any good. Elliott
said he disagrees, but the consensus is to not consider the option, so the group should move on. Rettig
said she was just about to say that. Right now, everyone is speaking against it and two people are
neutral; no one is speaking for the option. Wilson said it is recorded in the annals of time that the justice
center is a County project. Rettig said a decision is made on whether to pursue it, and the CJCC needs
to move on. Wilson said for what it is worth, Novak and Neumann Monson Architects both think that it
would serve the purpose well to have a bigger site. If the County keeps whittling away and adds more
facility, then it gets worse.
Funding Options: Question of a Legislative Change
Rettig said the group is going to have to return to the bonding question later. Rettig said the other
option was to pursue some legislative change for sales tax. Before the election, she had talked to
District 39 State Senator Joe Bolkcom, who is the Chairperson for the Iowa Senate Ways and Means
Committee. She asked if there is any way to pursue a legislative change to allow the County to access
sales tax revenue, even after the current sales tax, which was passed by Iowa City and other entities,
went off. She said Bolkcom said he can never say never about the Iowa Legislature, but he cannot
imagine that would ever happen. There is no willingness in the Iowa Legislature to expand the ability of
the sales tax, at this point. That was when the Democrats were in control of the Iowa Legislature and the
Governor's Office. So, the only person who Rettig could consider to be an expert on the topic said it
would probably never happen. Now, there has been an election in between. She said the CJCC needs to
make a decision about whether to pursue a sales tax change, but she has been told up front that it is
probably never going to happen. She said she trusts Bolkcom on the issue when he said it is probably
never going to happen.
Harney said he disagrees with Rettig. He said he does not know what Rettig's conversation was
with Bolkcom. He said he has had conversations with Bolkcom, who said he is willing to bring a bill
forward. The chances of it moving forward are probably slim, but it may very well come forward.
Rettig said that is exactly what she just said. Harney said he is not saying the County should or should
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011_01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 19 of 25
not pursue it. He said his take is that if there are options besides a sole property tax, then the County
should look at it. He said he is not crazy about telling taxpayers there would be a cost for this on
property taxes.
Wilson said if the County wants to pursue that option, then it could take quite a bit of time and could
hold things up. He asked if they need to move on that right now. Harney said he is not saying that the
County needs to pursue it at all. He said he is saying the County needs to let the Legislator go for it,
When the County is ready to do something, they will either bond for it or do a combination, if it is
available. If a bond is all that is available then that is what the County does.
Neuzil asked if, as far as process goes, the Board and CJCC want to continue to move forward with
the idea of bonding for the justice center project. That is the ultimate question. He asked if there are
other opportunities for funding. The County could do a reverse bond on some of it. There is also
Legislative change to allow for projects of the same nature to be from a General Fund expenditure to a
General Purpose expenditure under the General Supplemental Fund, which would give the County the
ability to do what the County did with the Joint Emergency Communication Center (JECC). One of the
Board's legislative priorities is to make the Courthouse an essential County purpose for security. The
Board has voted on this previously. It was a three -to -two vote. He said he and Harney voted against the
bonding part. He said he did so more procedurally. He asked if there is a breaking point of where a
Board member is not voting for the justice center if it is a bond issue.
Rettig said the reverse is true. She believes a sales tax is regressive and disproportionately affects
the poor. A sales tax is not an appropriate way to fund essential County services. She said she is on
record as saying that about the Conservation issue in her role at the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources. She repeated that Bolkcom told her a legislative change would be unlikely to ever pass.
She said Bolkcom did not mean that he would not sponsor the bill, but said it would be unlikely to pass.
She said she does not believe a sales tax is an appropriate way to fund this project.
Funding Options: Question of Bonding
Neuzil said he is not interested in making that kind of decision. He is more interested in pursuing a
bond right now. Sullivan said there might be a couple different questions to ask. The first question
would be if there is anyone who would vote against a bond. Harney said he would vote against a bond if
the group is not going to consider anything else. If however, only a bond is available at the time, then he
would vote for the bond. He said it would be foolish to say they are going to bond no matter what other
funding mechanisms might be available. Wilson asked about the idea of supporting a bond after all
other funding alternatives have been exhausted. Harney said he has no problem with that. He just does
not want to rule out something else.
Russell suggesting saying they will pursue the justice center project, assuming it is a bond issue, and
pursue other leads that do not slow the timeline down. Harney said that is what Neuzil said, and he has
the same idea. If other funding is available to furnish the building, or to do other things with the
Courthouse, then the County should pursue those options. Harney said the County should not
necessarily do a bond if other money out there. Sullivan said he does not think anyone is opposing a
situation where the County might get a Federal grant. No one is going to turn down a Federal grant.
Rettig said no one is going to turn down stimulus money either. Sullivan said there are two big funding
options: one that is available to the County and one that is not, but the group is discussing it anyway.
He asked how the group feels about each option. Wilson asked if the group can agree to a bond and any
other funding sources, as long as obtaining those funding sources will not delay the timeline. He asked
if that was what Russell said. Russell said it is.
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 20 of 25
Sullivan said he agrees with Rettig in terms of the sales tax; he is philosophically opposed to it. If
someone is philosophically opposed to bonding, then there is a "No" vote no matter what. The fact of
the matter is that there is no other way this project will get done. The County is not going to get
legislative changes. Wilson said he has not heard from anyone that is philosophically opposed to
bonding so far. Rettig said she happens to believe, philosophically, that the legislature should give the
County more tools than property tax. Sales tax is really regressive, but property tax is regressive also.
She said she believes there should be a local option income tax. That is her philosophical point of view,
but the reality is that the County only has one option. The County taxes for it and saves up to pay for it.
She said the County can bond $1.2 million on the project; she would vote for that. However, Pulkrabek
did not seem to think he could build a jail for $1.2 million. So, the only other option is to go to the
voters for a bond.
Wilson said there might be some other options. For example, the Board may want to keep the
bonding lower, so the Board will pay for the Courthouse renovation over time, like they did for the
HHS. Rettig said yes, and that would be true with a phasing plan also. Wilson said if no one is against
the idea of bonding, and the question is only a matter of how much bonding, when the project gets into
the design process and the costs are determined, they can start looking at shifting the load.
Sullivan asked Harney to clarify what he means when he says he wants to pursue all other options.
Russell said it means that the group does not want to slow down the process of focusing on a bond
measure to fund the justice center. If other things become available, such as a legislative change, then
the County will take advantage of that. The group may support it, may advocate for it, and may talk to
Bolkcom about it, but the CJCC will not let it take the project down a separate path. The County is
going to bond for the project, unless someone comes up with something else, and the group is going to
keep ears and minds open to other sources. Russell said maybe the Republican National Committee will
give the County a grant. He said no one ever knows. If the other things, such as what Harney is
advocating, lessen the burden on the taxpayers and make it easier for the elected officials to present the
project to the taxpayers, then the County will take advantage of those things. However, the group has to
proceed as though the project is going to be a bond measure only, because that is what they believe is
available now.
Wilson asked if there is any disagreement. Wilson said he is not hearing any disagreement. Neuzil
said he has no disagreement. Wilson said the group will check in with Stutsman on the question.
Purchase of Houses on Capitol Street
Sullivan said the money for the houses is in the County budget already. Lyness said she needs to
pursue it. Sullivan said the budgeted amount of money should cover the cost to purchase the houses. If
someone does not want to sell, then the County can technically just take the houses.
Neuzil asked if Lyness has enough direction regarding the potential for condemnation. He asked if
the Board has done enough to identify the topic as an essential purpose for the County. Wilson asked
Neuzil to clarify what he is asking about. Neuzil said, if the County has to go through the condemnation
process for acquiring the additional four houses, then has the Board of Supervisors given Lyness enough
legal authority to be able to say that those houses are something the Board has identified as property that
the County needs for the justice center project. Lyness said she would like a little more direction, but
she does have sufficient authority to work on the purchase of the homes. She said she can start with
that. If she needs more language from the Board, then she will come back to the Board to get it.
Rettig said Kriz volunteered to help Lyness with the process. Pulkrabek said the only reason Lyness
would need to come back to the Board on this matter is if the homeowner would not voluntarily sell and
http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/min/201 1 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 21 of 25
the County gets to a stalemate in negotiations. Rettig said the Board would have to vote on purchasing
it. The Board authorized the spending already, but Lyness would have to come to the Board for a vote
to purchase it. Pulkrabek said that brings him to another question. He asked the Board, as this process
is being done, if Lyness negotiates a purchase price within the amount of money funded, then will the
four Board members vote in favor of the purchase. Rettig said as far as she is concerned, the Board
already decided that when putting it in the budget. The Board authorized the bond for it. Pulkrabek said
he understands that.
Neuzil said the Board needs to know if there is a sufficient amount of money available or not. He
asked if the recent sale of the Iowa City Community School District Central Administration Office
building to the University of Iowa has some impact, or if there will be a reassessment. Looking at the
land values from the school district's building to the bank across the street, which the University is
looking at buying, the Board may have to look at the budget again. Lyness said she is going to have to
check with Johnson or Claiborne and the Auditor's Office, because she thinks the Board allocated the
money for not only the purchase of the houses, but also something with Ambulance.
Sullivan said yes, the Board can divide that any way that the Board wants. Rettig said the Board has
not bonded anything. Sullivan said the assessed value of the four houses was about $888,000, as of four
or five months ago. The County has $1.2 million available, which could be divided up in any way.
Neuzil said he thinks it was downsized a little bit. Rettig said the County has been self - funding the
project already. There is a new budget coming.
Wilson asked if Neuzil said the County should pursue the purchase of the properties if the properties
are within the allocated funds. Neuzil said no, he is suggesting another action step to include the Board
reevaluating the budget, so that if there are additional dollars needed, they can make those changes.
Sullivan said even if a new assessment is 15% above the current assessment, the County has the money
to do it. Rettig asked if that is not going to be sufficient money, then can the Board put more money in,
because the Board is about to do another budget. Neuzil said one of the Board's tasks was to identify
some additional things that are not in the current budget. It will be discussed at the Budget Meeting
scheduled for January 6, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. It is on his list.
Harney said the only thing about the properties is that he does not want the owners to try to get an
exorbitant amount of money. He said the County needs to look at a reasonable price. The deal with the
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is contingent upon the trade of that property for the north
portion of the GSA property. The County needs to weigh that out. He asked' if the County needs to
have those in line and ready if the GSA says yes. That could be one year from now or five years from
now. That option needs to be kept open.
Rettig said the County needs the properties regardless, because the property value is not going to go
down. In five years, if the County plots the area out, has a vote, and knows the land is not going to be
needed, then the County can sell the land. Neuzil said the potential for some short term parking needs
might be argument enough for why those pieces of property are needed. Sullivan said the County
cannot get held hostage by a property owner because the County has the right to take that property via
condemnation. The owner will be compensated according to an amount set by a Board appointed group
of people who determine the just compensation. An owner cannot get $2 million for one of those
houses. It might be a little more than the County would like to spend, but it has to be reasonable.
Neuzil said he wants to make sure that the County has estimated enough when it comes to details
like moving expenses, and keep in mind the Board may have to tweak the budget. Harney said he thinks
that is up to the person making the deal with the property owners. There are huge tax breaks for
individuals that accept an agreeable exchange of property under the threat of condemnation, but that is
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf - -j - min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 22 of 25
up to the negotiator to make those decisions. Neuzil said an action step is to ask if Lyness has a
sufficient committee to get this process going. Lyness said yes. She said she has already talked with
Pulkrabek. Rettig said now Kriz is also willing to help.
Wilson asked if Johnson has the action item written down. Johnson said he thinks so. Neuzil said it
is identified as a task for the Facilities Subcommittee in the Planning and Objectives document.
Vacation/Use of Harrison Street
Wilson said Iowa City Planning and Community Development Director Jeff Davidson indicated that
before Iowa City can take serious action on vacating Harrison Street, he needs some sort of plan to
justify it. Rettig said she would like an action item with this topic. She said Champion and Davidson
know, but they may not be with the City forever. Rettig said maybe someone should bring the new City
Manger up to speed on the justice center concept and conversation, including the vacation of Harrison
Street. Wilson said that person would relay that the County knows it will need Harrison Street but does
not know when that is. Rettig said yes.
Russell asked if the discussions could include obtaining the information that the Board needs to
know about, how long the vacation process takes and what steps need to be taken to complete the
process when the time comes. Wilson said it usually takes six to nine months. Sullivan said Kempf is
familiar with the process because the County had to do it for the HHS. Kempf said Assistant County
Attorney Andy Chappell took care of that. Wilson said someone might first explain to Davidson and the
new City Manager that the preliminary indications from Novak are that the Harrison Street vacation is
going to be needed. The County is not sure of the layout, but the County needs the entire site.
Rettig asked how long the vacation process will take once the City agrees to it. She said someone
needs to volunteer to talk with the City Manager. Wilson said a couple road vacations that he worked on
for the UI took a year and a half, but he thinks this the County process will take less time.
Neuzil said the action step is to start the process for the Harrison Street vacation. There are two
ways to look at it. One way is to have the Facilities Subcommittee do it. To complicate it even more,
there will be an issue with parking regulations if the County does not build enough parking to meet City
requirements; the County may need a waiver. There is probably a fairly significant list of things to start
thinking about. Rettig said the County needs to welcome new Iowa City City Manager Tom Markus,
and also to explain the County's problems; they are not just parking regulations at the proposed justice
center site, but there may need to be parking in the Iowa City lots. There is some indication that can be
done, but Markus may not know that. Whoever goes to talk to him should introduce all of the topics.
Neuzil said the Facilities Subcommittee would be the most appropriate group to present the CJCC
point of view. The Board of Supervisors has a liaison process, and even though there are not any Iowa
City liaisons, there are Iowa City Fringe Area liaisons. Sullivan said he has talked with Davidson about
the vacation at some length, and he would be willing to invite Davidson and Markus to participate in a
meeting with the CJCC representatives. The group agreed on sending Kempf and Sullivan to visit with
Iowa City.
Remaining Issues
Wilson said the remaining topics are Jail reuse, amount of parking, and the schematic design of how
the building will look. Sullivan said Jail design is something the group is not up to the task of knowing.
The group needs someone that knows buildings to look at the existing Jail and to explain if it could be
reused, what it could be reused for, and how much it would cost. No one in this group has the expertise.
http://wwwjohnson-county.com/auditor/min/201 1 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 23 of 25
Wilson said the Jail design could be part of the consultant's challenge, or if the group has a burning
desire, then someone could be hired just to look at Jail design. It would probably be more efficient and
less costly to blend it into the schematic design process. Sullivan agreed.
Rettig said she is going to confuse the topic slightly. She thinks there is a way to reutilize the Jail
that may be less expensive than $50 million. She suggested putting a taller building next to the Jail that
ties into the building and a skywalk extending to something else that is across the street, that is like the
HHS, sitting in a couple of the houses and into the street leading up to the break room entrance, is that
something that gets them down the road that is less expensive than digging into the hill. She said she
knows that boring into a hill and building up multiple stories is more expensive than something like
this. Wilson agreed. Rettig said she would want to know that there is no way to reutilize the Jail into
the new facility as topic number one, that it may be way too expensive. Then topic number two, can the
Jail be reutilized without punching through a skywalk. She asked if it could be a Civil Division, Jail
Alternatives, or County Attorney's space. She is not tagging anyone in particular, but just wants to know
that, too. If what she found out is that there is no way people would vote for something over a certain
dollar amount, but yet that space could be reused, though inconvenient and less than perfect, she would
want to be able to consider that. Neuzil added that the use could be for storage, kitchen and laundry
space. Sullivan said, while he doesn't disagree, these are things that a professional will decide.
Neuzil said most important is the piece of land, he is really hesitant on getting rid of the Jail without
securing the GSA property; he does not want to land lock the County buildings. At least this would give
future Boards of Supervisors something to work with. Wilson said several questions have been raised.
One is, are there any space needs which should be allocated for, that would reasonably fit into the
existing Jail. The other question is if those spaces will fit, is it worth the cost. The third question raised
is if both these options work, could the County get more money for it from the UI and therefore lessen
the burden on the Jail in a different way.
Rettig responded to the land banking issue raised earlier, she said the County should keep the land
for future use. Neuzil said if the property becomes so valuable that footings could be installed for
vertical construction, so be it. He just does not want to lose sight of the site and get land locked.
Sullivan said if the property is that valuable, they should probably just raze the building and build anew.
Wilson asked, if it is not feasible to use it for Jail functions, are there other County functions that
would fit in for the purpose of keeping the building in use until the land is needed. He thinks all those
questions could be addressed under the following heading: "We would like to reuse the Jail if feasible."
Then during the schematic design phase, the consultant will inform them if it can be used for Jail
purposes in a sensible way and if it is cost - effective. If not, he asked does it then make sense to move
another County office into the building. If that does not make sense, then should they sell it or tear it
down and use it for parking. There would be options. Neuzil said he would like to just have the piece of
property for future use.
Harney said realistically, it would end up being the Sheriff's Office as well as investigations. The
Jail would still be separate and no matter what, it will cost to remodel.
Wilson asked the CJCC and the Board members if they have reached an agreement to reuse the Jail,
if it is feasible. Pulkrabek and Sullivan said they want to be open to that. Harney said the language he
would use is "if it is in the County's best interest." Wilson said okay, they are open to reuse the Jail.
The other issues remaining are amount of parking, schematic design, public assurance that all other Jail
alternatives have been considered and timing of the placing the question on the ballot.
Neuzil added one other issue, some kind of furthering of the GSA discussion. Rettig said two
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 24 of 25
congressional offices have volunteered to help, but they have not pursued that. Wilson said they should
add that to their action items. Neuzil said the action item should read "Continue to pursue acquisition of
the GSA property." Neuzil asked who is on the committee to work with the GSA. Wilson said he
thinks they are in a standoff at the moment. Harney said no, the GSA is considering the options and it is
going through their review process. Neuzil said that they need to plan some steps to follow through with
this. Pulkrabek asked if any Board members are going on the Chamber trip to Washington D.C. Neuzil
said Harney is going. Pulkrabek said he thinks that is an opportunity to keep this GSA discussion alive.
In addition to that, he thinks Board members should try to talk to the Federal delegation about this and
remind them to keep it on their radar. Pulkrabek suggested an action item to read "Prepare talking
points for the D.C. Chamber trip."
Rettig said she is booked to go to the NACo meeting in March, 2011. Neuzil restated that he does
not want this discussion to die for lack of following through. Pulkrabek said he and Lyness met with a
staff member from Senator Harkin's office and they can certainly follow up with that contact. He said
this kind of regular follow -up over the next three months: he and Lyness this month with Senator
Harkin's office, Harney next month when he is in Washington D.C., and Stutsman and Rettig the
following month at NACo, is what will keep the discussion alive. Neuzil said he will say the same thing
in a nicer way. The UI has been acquiring a lot of property around that area and it would be nice for the
County to acquire this GSA property before the UI takes it.
OTHER
Russell thanked the Board of Supervisors for putting this meeting together. He thinks it has been
very useful.
Neuzil asked where they go from here. It would be nice to know what the tasks people should
follow through with. Rettig said the Planning and Objectives document timeline should be updated.
Neuzil said, by the end of July 2011, a plan was supposed to be in place so that the CJCC knew what
they want on the ballot. That is not realistic so the timeline needs to be updated. Rettig said there was a
discussion that they were unlikely to be putting it on the ballot in 2011, and they need to make that a
final decision.
Neuzil said he and McCarragher can update the document to indicate what has been completed and
what remains. Rettig asked directly, is there anyone sitting at the table who thinks they are voting on it
this year. CJCC members conveyed their answer with head shakes and Rettig said the consensus is the
earliest it would be on the ballot is in 2012. Wilson said, as far as this group is concerned, they get the
minutes and action items in order, poll Stutsman to know her position, and then send the minutes out for
review. Then at the next meeting, they will agree on the minutes and move forward. They will decide
whether they want to deal with any remaining issues.
Elliott asked the Supervisors to consider reporting on an action plan with a timeline at the next
meeting.
Rettig thanked Wilson for his expertise and the group applauded him. Harney said a lot of work
went into Wilson's effort and the Board appreciates all he has done.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE
Harney said the next CJCC Meeting is scheduled for February 2, 2011, at 4:30 p.m.
Adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
http: / /www.johnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011_01_05_inf -j- min.htm 2/1/2011
MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD... Page 25 of 25
/s /Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
http: / /www.j ohnson- county.com /auditor /min/2011 _01 _05_inf- j- min.htm 2/1/2011
02 -03 -11
IN
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION DRAFT
Sunday, January 9, 2011- 4:00 PM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Jerry Gao, Alexandra Tamerius, Matt Lincoln, Caroline Van Voorhis,
Sam Fosse, and Leah Murray
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Ross Wilburn
Others Present: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4.00 PM.
ELECTION OF TEMPORARY CHAIR & VICE CHAIR:
City Clerk Karr reported that the terms of the Chair and Vice Chair had expired and by -laws require
election of officers in March. After discussion, the Commission decided to elect a temporary Chair and
Vice Chair for a two month period until elections in March. Lincoln motioned to elect a temporary Chair
for two months, which was seconded by Tamerius. The motion passed unanimously 6/0. Moved by
Lincoln to elect Gao as temporary Chair, seconded by Tamerius. The motion passed unanimously 6/0.
Lincoln then motioned to elect Tamerius as temporary Vice Chair for two months which was seconded by
Van Voorhis. The motion passed unanimously 6/0.
Jerry Gao chaired the meeting.
MINUTES:
Gao noticed a correction in the minutes of December 10. Instead of "12" applicants from Regina, there
were "13," and the Commission amended "next person" and replaced it with "next time." Tamerius
motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Lincoln seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously, 6/0.
UPDATE ON VACANCIES:
The Commission currently has one vacancy, Tate.
BUDGET UPDATE:
a) 2011 BUDGET
City Clerk Karr mentioned that she had received receipts from Regina totaling $1,000 dollars leaving a
balance of $898.03.
b)2012 REQUEST
Gao composed a 2012 budget request summary sheet. The Commission discussed a notable decrease of
$1250 from the FYI I budget and the proposed FY 12 budget request. Van Voorhis recognized a
correction in the proposed 2012 budget request, The Commission changed "serves" to "serve." Tamerius
made a motion to approve the 2012 budget request as amended. Lincoln seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously, 6/0. Karr mentioned that a memo was released for all boards and commissions
inviting them to speak with the City Council on the proposed budget on January 18th. Karr stated that she
reserved a slot for the Youth Advisory Commission at 8:15 to speak about their FYI budget request. The
Commission stated that they would like to have the budget request summary in the Thursday Council
packet the before the meeting. Tamerius stated that she would be able to address Council, while both
Murray and Van Voorhis stated they might attend the meeting as well.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
■ The Commission discussed the Grant Programming Subcommittee. Tamerius abstained from the
discussion due to a conflict of interest, and left the room. The Commission reviewed the GLOW
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
January 9, 2011
Page 2 of 3
application again due to the fact that the original applicant did not reside in Iowa City. The new
application, from a new applicant, states payment would be straight to the vendor Old Capitol
Screen Printers and not to the person. There was a two dollar discrepancy in the desired amount
from the first and second application. The first application asked for $898 while the second
application asked for $896. The Commission decided to award GLOW $896. Moved by Lincoln
to approve the GLOW application for $896. Van Voorhis seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously 5/0, with Tamerius abstaining. Tamerius returned to the meeting.
No new updates on Website and Advertisements.
The Commission next discussed the Youth Recognition Grant. After several rounds of voting,
Michael Sueppel and Andrew Yowell were chosen as the two winners for the Youth Recognition
Grant. Karr suggested that the Youth Recognition Grant Subcommittee notify all applicants and
winners with a letter. Karr agreed to draft the letters and send it to the Youth Recognition Grant
Subcommittee for review and approval. It was agreed that a certificate and $250 check would be
presented to the winners at the February 13 meeting. Due to the amount of applicants, Karr
suggested all applicants and their families be invited to the February meeting so they can see how
the Commission operates. The Commission agreed and wanted to add "Youth Recognition Grant"
to the agenda for the next meeting agenda to talk about the process for next year.
■ The Commission decided to make no new subcommittee appointments until March.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Wilburn reported Council received their new City budget in December. There will be a public hearing on
the overall budget on February 15. Wilburn also stated that he will not be running for re- election this fall.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
The Commission set a date for the next meeting, Sunday, February 13 at 4:00 PM.
Lincoln motioned to adjourn, which was seconded by Tamerius. The motion to adjourn passed
unanimously, 6/0, 5:12 PM.
Minutes submitted by Lincoln.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2011
(Meeting Date)
NAME
TERM
EXP.
1/9
2/13
Leah Murray (West)
12/31/11
X
Alexandra Tamerius
12/31/11
X
Sam Fosse (City)
12/31/31
X
,Jerry Gao (At Large)
12/31/11
X
Matt Lincoln (Regina)
12/31/11
X
Caroline VanVoorhis (At Large)
12/31/11
X
Position Vacant (fate)
12/31/11
- --
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting /No Quorum
- -- = Not a Member
MINUTES I IP12
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
January 18, 2011
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr., David Brown, Dianne Day, Diane Finnerty, Howard Cowen, Connie
Goeb.
Members Absent: Harry Olmstead, Martha Lubaroff, Wangui Gathua.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Others Present: Peter Small.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): No.
CALL TO ORDER
Day called the meeting to order at 18:00.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Pet er Small asked about the Sanctuary City
information sent to Council.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE November 16, 2010 MEETING:
Cowen, moved to approve.
Goeb seconded.
The motion passed 6 -0.
ELECTIONS
Day was elected Chair for 2011
Cowen, moved to appoint.
Townsend seconded.
The motion passed 6 -0.
Goeb was elected Vice Chair for 2011
Townsend, moved to appoint.
Brown seconded.
The motion passed 6 -0.
DELVING INTO DIVERSITY
Bowers reported on a program that is still in the planning stages that will look at diversity issues and how they
relate to this community.
DIVERSITY DAY
Commissioners will participate in this event but will defer to the February meeting date concerning staffing.
LISTENING PROJECT
Commissioners will place this item on the February agenda for Commissioner Olmstead to discuss.
SPEAKER'S BUREAU
Commissioners Day and Goeb reported on the possible speakers for the Bureau and also asked
Commissioners to look over the brochure for any additions or deletions.
YOUTH AWARDS
Bowers reported that the Youth Awards will be held on May 11, 2011.
Human Rights Commission
January 18, 2011
Page 2
SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES
Having gained three Commissioners, Commissioners decided to group into areas of interest and will discuss
more at future meetings.
REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS
Cowen reported that the University of Iowa Dental School received a grant from the Healthy Schools Grant to
help children in the Iowa City Community School District receive dental care. Day mentioned that she will be
attending a Pickleball tournament in the near future.
STAFF REPORTS
Staff of the Commission will be participating in an Off Campus Housing Fair in February and also speaking to a
class at the University.
ADJOURNMENT
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Goeb seconded.
The motion passed 6 -0 at 19:10
Human Rights Commission
January 18, 2011
Page 3
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2011
(Mpptinn Date)
NAME
TER
M
EXP.
1/1
8
2/15
3/15
4/19
5/17
6/21
7/19
8/16
9/20
10/18
11/15
12/20
Dianne Day
1/1/12
X
Wangui
Gathua
1/1/12
O/E
Martha
Lubaroff
1/1/12
O/E
Howard
Cowen
1/1/13
X
Constance
Goeb
1/1/13
X
Harry
Olmstead
(8 -1 -2010)
1/1/13
O/E
Orville
Townsend,
Sr.
111/14
X
Diane
Finnerty
1/1/14
X
David B.
Brown
1/1/14
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting /No Quorum
R = Resigned
- =Not a Member