The Hot Beat

Icon

The second-day story, with your help. Call Gazette reporter Adam Belz at (319) 398-8273 or e-mail him: adam.belz@gazcomm.com

Supes haggle on AOB vs. Juvy Courts

Linn County will submit two projects to the state I-JOBS board for funding, and lines were drawn Monday on which of the two is most important.

Supervisor Jim Houser said the county’s Administrative Office Building should be the first priority in obtaining state economic stimulus dollars. Supervisor Brent Oleson thinks a new juvenile courts facility should be the top priority.

“We’ve got to put county government back together in a county seat,” Houser said. “We’re taking care of our county functions first.”

Oleson argued that juvenile courts was left without a home in the “musical chairs” at the county courthouse since the flood, and it’s more important because it serves children, a disproportionate number of which are minorities.

“I think that’s a whole lot more compelling a story to tell I-JOBS than that me and a bunch of other elected officials need new offices,” Oleson said.

The supervisors want to spend about $12 million to renovate and expand the Administrative Office Building, 930 First St. SW. The I-JOBS application will ask for $8.8 million. A new juvenile law center and courthouse could cost up to $4.5 million, and the supervisors will submit an I-JOBS application for roughly $3.4 million.

Supervisor Lu Barron wants the board to prioritize the two projects in case state officials ask which is more important. “No doubt, both are extremely important,” she said.

Supervisors Linda Langston and Ben Rogers said they would rather not prioritize the projects, since it might pit the projects against each other.

Houser said he’d “like to see both projects funded,” but points out the office building is an explicit county function, while juvenile courts will house state services.

The supervisors will make a decision on the question at Wednesday’s meeting, 10 a.m., Linn County West.

Advertisements

Filed under: County Government, , , , , , , , , , , ,

More on bonding, county buildings

Feeling the need to post something, so here’s a draft of a story that will go in tomorrow’s paper, about the county Administrative Office Building and the potential for bonding without voter approval:

CEDAR RAPIDS — The Linn County Supervisors delayed a vote Wednesday to form a committee that would look into purchasing Steve & Barry’s, the current home of county offices.

When the question does come up for a vote, perhaps next week, likely its only supporter will be Supervisor Brent Oleson, who argues that if bonding to help pay for an $11.7 million renovation and addition to the Administrative Office Building fails with voters, the supervisors will need a second option.

Three of five supervisors say they will consider borrowing money for the project without voter approval. Recent state legislation allows bonding for major building repairs in disaster-affected counties, and the building falls within an urban renewal district, which also opens the possibility for bonding without voter approval.

Bypassing voters to issue bonds might be necessary, Supervisors Linda Langston, Jim Houser and Lu Barron say, because Linn County, Cedar Rapids and the Cedar Rapids School District need funding for several projects, and sending all those projects to the ballot would be inefficient.

“We could be looking at ten bond issues,” Langston said.

She said that trying to get voter approval for a bond issue in the November election will be difficult, as citizens go to the polls to elect a new city council.

“I can just about guarantee what will happen with that vote,” she said. “I really don’t want to be on that November ballot.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has promised $2.2 million to repair the flood-damaged lower level of the Administrative Office Building at 930 First St. SE. But supervisors believe it’s important to add onto the building, reconfigure it and mitigate it against future flooding.

Not only do county plans call for a new top floor, but the Information Technology and Recorder’s Offices must be moved up from the basement that flooded in June. The building’s mechanical components must also be moved from the basement to the roof.

The supervisors are in a tough spot. They believe these improvements are crucial, but they worry voters won’t agree.

“I am in favor of putting this up for a vote,” Supervisor Ben Rogers said. “(But) if it doesn’t pass the 60 percent threshold, we will have to go back to a building that’s too small for us, that does not suit all our needs.”

Oleson won’t commit to voting against bonding past the voters, but he opposed the legislation that would allow it and he opposed the plans for the building that the board approved Monday.

“I would be inclined to have voter approval for any project that goes substantively beyond what it was,” he said. “If it’s such a great idea, the voters will probably approve it.”

Filed under: County Government, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dear Jim Houser…

Here we are again, talking about you — your computer, your morning commute, your mileage and your right under state law to reimburse yourself for the miles you drive.

Regarding your March 3 letter to the editor, which regarded my Dec. 21 Government Note, which in turn regarded your comments at a Dec. 17 Linn County supervisors “team-building” session, I will repeat what I’ve said to you many times: The Gazette did not report any “misinformation.”

Why would you say “it seemed silly for me to drive downtown (to supervisors offices in the Palmer Building) to check my e-mails, when I already checked them from home, and drive back to Westdale when I live on the far west side?”

Yes, it seems silly. Why would you even bring it up? If it seemed silly to you back in December, you should have just continued to check your e-mail at home, driven straight to Westdale in the morning and not complained about the location of the meetings.

But that’s not what you said, is it Jim? No, it’s not. You said it was “really inefficient” for you to drive to Westdale. You said you had to go to Palmer first. You said you had e-mail hassles because of the commute. You threatened to charge mileage for the trip.

We all say things we regret, and then we have to take them back. But you’re not taking anything back. You’re acting like you didn’t say what you said.

Let’s have another meeting with everyone who was at the meeting in December. We’ll call in Lu, and Linda, and Becky, and Brent, and Ben, and Joel, and maybe even Jeff Schott.

They will be the witnesses, and then maybe we can settle this.

Then you could write a letter to the editor about something else. There are, after all, other things to talk about. I can think of a few off the top of my head. Budget shortfalls. The sales tax election. The declining economy. Flood recovery. Flood victims.

Adam Belz
Cedar Rapids, IA

Filed under: County Government, Flood, , ,

Houser vs. Oleson for solid waste vice chairmanship

Rick Smith reports on the battle for the vice chairmanship of the Solid Waste Agency board. It was Houser vs. Oleson, and Houser emerged victorious.

“With just seven board members in attendance, the vote was first on Oleson. Kress and Podzimek raised their hands, and there was Oleson’s hand for himself.

Shields, Pat Ball, the city’s utilities director, Mark Jones, the city’s solid waste/recycling manager, and Houser voted for Houser.”

It’s worth a look.

Filed under: Cedar Rapids City Council, County Government, , , , ,

What was behind Westdale’s ultimatum?

After the flood, the mall donated office space to Linn County for nearly six months.

Since November, the county has been paying rent, and weighing its options for the future of county buildings. On Dec. 1, the mall’s owners offered to sell the mall to the county for $18.5 million.

Then on Friday came an ultimatum for the supervisors: Buy the mall or find a new place for county offices.

Clearly frustration played into this, as Brent Oleson argues on his blog.

But there’s more to it.

The fact that the county has taken up temporary residence at the mall is the mall owner’s only bargaining chip.

They’ve been trying to sell for $18.5 million since March 2008, and reportedly have received no offers near that. While the presence of numerous government offices has breathed some life into the mall, its pre-flood retail occupancy had dwindled to around 50 percent.

Even if one were to disregard the figures presented at Friday’s meeting – where purchasing Westdale would be millions of dollars more expensive than the county’s other options (which include a potential joint facility with the city and school district) – the prospect of buying Westdale Mall is daunting to county officials. The county would fill only 10 percent of the space, leaving 90 percent of the 630,000 square feet for the county to manage/sell/develop/etc.

One theory is that the supervisors (except perhaps Oleson and Rogers) have never seriously considered buying the mall.

This has been Auditor Joel Miller’s contention since before the offer was made, and Miller exploded at Friday’s meeting over the fact that the supervisors and their staff have not been communicating with mall owners much since December.

The mall says it has “assembled a package of property information for [supervisors’] review,” but can’t send it until the county returns a confidentiality agreement that would protect the proprietary information in the packet. The county has not returned the agreement, and this bugs both Miller and Oleson.

Miller said he was “incredibly disappointed” and called the supervisors “amazing” for not communicating better with the mall’s owners.

Oleson, on his blog, argues something similar, in softer language:

“I think the statement was made in frustration at the lack of formal communication between the county and the Mall owners. There has literally been no communication between the county and the sellers regarding the Mall owners early December offer to sell.”

Mike Goldberg said he received the confidentiality agreement and passed it on to Gary Jarvis, assistant county attorney.

Jarvis said after the meeting Friday that he thought the county had gathered the information it needed. But more importantly, he didn’t want county staff to come up with a recommendation for the supervisors based on confidential information. It might have forbidden staff from explaining their recommendations in public meetings, a scenario he did not find acceptable.

Filed under: County Government, , , , , , , , ,

Where does each supervisor stand on salaries?

Revised 5:15 p.m. to add comment from Langston below:

The Compensation Board will meet Feb. 3 at 4 p.m. at Westdale Mall, and the supervisors have said they will meet shortly before then to come up with a recommendation.

Again, whether the Comp Board accepts the supervisors’ recommendation is an open question, but it’s fair to assume the supervisors will have some influence on the outcome.

Some of those who defend the supervisors foresee a bidding war auctioneered by a merciless public. Such a war would have been won by defeated supervisor candidate Dave Machacek, who proposed $50,000 per year per supervisor. But he’s returned quietly to Alburnett since the election, and the board will come up with a recommendation without him.

The new goalposts have been set by District 3 Supervisor Ben Rogers and District 5 Supervisor Jim Houser. Rogers is sticking to his guns on $70,000 per year. Houser favors keeping the salary at its current level — about $87,000.

The other three have yet to decide.

“I haven’t made up my mind,” District 1 Supervisor Lu Barron says. “For certain, there should not be a raise.”

District 4 Supervisor Brent Oleson hasn’t decided either, but is leaning toward making an individual presentation to the Comp Board. He said he’s been looking at supervisor salaries in other counties and minutes from past Comp Board meetings, and talking to Comp Board members.

“There is no circumstance under which I would recommend any kind of a pay increase,” District 2 Supervisor Langston said. “If we were to cut, I’m guessing that it would be between a five and ten percent cut.”

When salaries go on the supervisors’ agenda, I will blog about it. Both that meeting and the Comp Board meeting will be open to the public.

Filed under: County Government, , , , , , , ,

Supervisors “get-to-work gas money fund”

Jim Houser, by his own admission, has taken a beating for his comments in December about charging the public for his drive from the downtown Palmer Building to Westdale Mall.

The story has gotten a lot of mileage (pun intended), and at Monday’s supervisors meeting, Ron Stodola of Marion added to it.

Stodola is the same guy who rebuked the supervisors last March over their salaries. He told them they had better cut their own pay, or promise they will, as soon as possible.

“If you don’t, I think we’re going to look for five new supervisors,” he said.

Well, he was back on Monday, and he was not happy. After criticizing the supervisors for rescinding the March resolution that made them part-time, he walked to the front of the room at Westdale, and did the following, according to Becky Shoop, the deputy auditor who took the meeting’s minutes:

“Stodola came up and laid a bunch of change down, and said ‘I’m contributing to the Board of Supervisors get-to-work gas money fund.’”

Filed under: County Government, , , ,

Get on the train, folks

Yesterday was a slow day on County Supervision (i.e., no new content), because I had to fill in on the night cops beat and babysit the police scanner all night. But at least two things worth mentioning happened, and they both fit in nicely with the point I will now try to make.

First, District 4 Supervisor Brent Oleson blogged about Wednesday morning’s supervisors meeting. He thinks the taxpayer will get slammed if all the county’s legislative wishes are granted, and you can read his take on the meeting here. I will try to get the minutes posted today.

Second, KCRG-TV9’s Claire Kellett did a Wednesday story explaining Twitter to the good people of Eastern Iowa. Twitter is a website where anyone can publish what he or she is doing, moment by moment, for anyone to see. It’s a cross between a blog and a Facebook status update. It really is a useful way to stay on top of what’s going on. Kellett interviewed District 3 Supervisor Ben Rogers, who said “I’m going to use it to broadcast meetings I am going to, and discussions that were had that deal with county business, because I really like to get the feedback.”

Here at County Supervision, we’ve been following Twitter for a few months, and we’ve got Twitter feeds posted on the right hand column of this blog not only for Rogers, but also for Oleson and Linn County Auditor Joel Miller, who’s been on Twitter for longer than anyone in county government (Is he still in Germany, or what?).

Here’s the point of all this: If you care about Linn County government, and you have something to say, you should get involved in the online discussion.

I’ve been quietly lobbying several people to start blogs, and my success has been comparable to that of a human head forcefully confronting a brick wall. But I will persist. Blogs and Twitter are simple, free ways to articulate viewpoints and communicate with large numbers of people. If you are an elected official, they are tools to help you communicate with constituents and be transparent — about discussions and decisions. WordPress and Blogger are good, simple places to start a blog. Twitter is even easier.

There’s no reason Oleson should be the only supervisor blogging, that Rogers, Oleson and Miller should be the only elected officials tweeting, or that I should be the only private citizen writing about county government. Get on the train. And contact me any time to discuss this. I’m at adam.belz@gazcomm.com or (319) 398-8273.

More news coming later today.

Filed under: County Government, , , , , , , , ,

County building survey poo-poos downtown

The Board of Supervisors heard a presentation this morning from Lynn Manternach, a representative of Mindfire Communications, the company that conducted a $16,000 survey to find out what the public wants the county to do with its damaged buildings and where the public wants county offices to be.

Brent Oleson, over at his blog, summarizes the findings nicely: Key findings of the survey indicate that county residents overwhelmingly want a one-stop approach to county services, want those services to be provided in one location if possible, and want convenience in access to those services (location, parking, etc.). Most notably, county residents dismissed the idea that county government buildings or services had to be located in downtown Cedar Rapids.

I liveblogged this morning’s meeting here.

The timeline for a decision on Westdale and other county buildings is still fuzzy. Lu Barron said it would be three phased. The first phase is this survey, talks with the city and schools, and a study of what county employees want out of their offices. The second phase will be further talks with the city and schools, a “look at alternatives” (whatever that means) and further public input. The third phase will be a decision, “somwhere in the spring,” Barron said.

Sandi Fowler of the city was at the meeting, and said she expects a big, joint public input process (complete with foamcore boards and open houses) beginning somewhere in late February or early March. So it’s hard to imagine a decision on Westdale coming out before April. At least we know it’s not likely a buyer will swoop in and take Westdale while the supervisors weigh their options. The owners have been trying to sell it for $18.5 million since March, and haven’t had an offer anywhere near that figure.

By the way, I am trying to encourage others involved in county government — besides Oleson — to begin blogging. Langston seemed interested. Curt Zingula, Ed Mulholland and Dustin Hinrichs all turned me down. Hinrichs because his superiors didn’t like the idea, and Mulholland and Zingula because they think blogging is a distasteful enterprise, and more trouble than it’s worth. (Yep, I just outed you guys.)

Filed under: County Government, , , , , , ,

Salaries not on Tuesday agenda

The Linn County supervisors will not discuss their salaries at tomorrow’s meeting.

After dispensing with their part-time status and in effect giving themselves a raise over what they would have made in the next six months, Supervisors Lu Barron, Jim Houser and Linda Langston said they would come up with a salary recommendation for the Compensation Board.

They argued that they are in reality full time, not part time, and it was important to settle that before new members Ben Rogers and Brent Oleson took office. Then, they said, the five supervisors could sit down and come up with a salary for themselves, recommend it to the Comp Board and hope the Comp Board takes the recommendation.

Linda Langston said the supervisors will discuss the issue shortly before the Comp Board meets.

Compensation Board Chairman Allen Merta said he’s requested for the meeting to be Feb. 3 at 4 p.m. at Westdale Mall.

“They were very polite, but they said they disagreed with what the supervisors did, and they thought the Compensation Board should do something about it,” Merta said.

One thing the supervisors will discuss Tuesday at 9 a.m. is the results of the survey on where the public wants county offices to be. The survey will have direct bearing on the county’s decision to purchase or not purchase Westdale Mall. That decision is coming in several weeks, with supervisors saying they’ll either announce a conclusion in February or March.

Filed under: County Government, , , , , ,

RSS Linn County Auditor on Twitter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Brent Oleson on Twitter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Ben Rogers on Twitter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Chuck Grassley on Twitter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Adam Belz on Twitter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.