|
rodsullivan.org
SULLIVAN'S SALVOS
March 31, 2012
Sullivan’s Salvos 4/3/12 In this edition: *Happy Birthday Jordan! *Happy Easter! *Congratulations, Sue Henderson! *Mental Health Reform *Did You Know? Happy Birthday Jordan! Happy Birthday to my daughter Jordan, who turns 18 on April 8. My little girl has grown into a beautiful young lady. I could spend a month writing about my daughter. I am going to write about Jordan at greater length very soon; I’ll try to get that done before she graduates in May. Meanwhile, Happy Birthday, Honey! I love you! Happy Easter! Happy Easter to those of you who celebrate it! I wish you good times and safe travels. *Congratulations, Sue Henderson! Congratulations to Deputy Sheriff Sue Henderson, who is retiring after 27 years of service to Johnson County. Good luck in your retirement, Sue – you will be missed! *Mental Health Reform The Iowa Legislature has decided to take on reform of the Mental Health and Disability Services (MH/DS) system. While this system is definitely in need of reform, I have little confidence in the ability of the Legislature to get this right. That may sound harsh, but my reasons are many: The last time Iowa “reformed” the system was 1996. The Legislature pledged that from that day forward, the state and counties would share equally in MH/DS funding. What happened? The legislature kept their promise three out of seventeen years. Unfortunately, 3/17 is better than the Legislature usually does when it comes to promises to local governments. Because of this, people who receive services, their families, service providers, and counties have all learned to distrust the Legislature. That is issue number one. The number two issue is quite simple – mental health is no different than physical health. All of these conditions should be covered by health insurance – no exceptions. Democrats have proposed so-called “parity” legislation for years, but Republicans have refused to support it. Nothing the Legislature is doing addresses the real issue. The number three issue is money. The system is underfunded by millions of dollars. Republicans in the Legislature admit it is underfunded. Democrats in the Legislature claim the system is underfunded by $125 million. The real number is at least twice that. Republicans in the Legislature are proposing about a quarter of the funding laid out by Democrats. Nothing the Legislature is doing addresses the real issue. I know that many of my Republican friends will roll their eyes at the last statement. They will say, “your response is always to throw money at the problem.” While I stand by the financial shortfall, I can throw my GOP friends a bone in the next area. Iowa Medicaid requires ridiculously onerous rules for documentation and billing. These aren’t federal rules; they are Iowa’s interpretation of federal rules. My GOP friends would be correct to point out that there is TREMENDOUS bureaucratic waste in the system. All you get from Legislators when you mention this is, “Iowa’s State Medicaid Director is one of the best in the Country.” I say bullcrap! Personally, I think she should be fired. If she is the best in the country, then 49 other people need to lose their jobs, too. I am tired of hearing about her resume. Look at her results! Bureaucracy rules the day, and it is getting MUCH worse, not better. Nothing the Legislature is doing addresses the real issue. The fifth issue is the rural nature of Iowa. There is a significant shortage of psychiatrists and other professionals in rural areas. This should come as no surprise; it is simple economics. Small populations have trouble maintaining grocery stores, hardware stores, doctors, dentists, and movie theaters; there is no reason to believe mental health professionals would be any different. If you want them in rural Iowa, you are going to need to pay them to be in rural Iowa. Nothing the Legislature is doing addresses the real issue. You routinely hear that Iowa’s system is “unequal”, and that the availability of services should not be based upon where you live. I agree. But to address that, the State needs to take over 100% of the funding. The State knows they would need to raise taxes in order to do this, so instead they want to include the Counties’ property taxes to make it work. I understand why – property taxes are stable and reliable, and the taxes are paid locally rather than to Des Moines. I am fine with a system that is equal regardless of where you live. But the current proposals would shift MILLIONS of your property tax dollars to the State, so that they could then redistribute the money to rural counties. I do not represent the State of Iowa – I represent Johnson County. And I do not want to see our taxpayers pay millions more in return for less services. That is precisely what the current State proposals would do. I cannot support this. I know there are some very good minds working on this. I also know that most of the people working on this are well intentioned. I hope they come up with a solution that meets the needs of people with disabilities and taxpayers alike. We shall see! *DID YOU KNOW? 40% of all commercial and industrial property in Iowa is in a TIF district. Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website- www.johnson-county.com. "Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents. These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned. If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line. If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line. As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you! ---Rod
March 24, 2012
Sullivan’s Salvos 3/27/12
In this edition:
*Bottle Bill
*War With Iran? No Thanks!
*History of County Government in Iowa
*Sounds of Friendship Concert
*Did You Know?
*Bottle Bill
I was listening to Iowa Public Radio recently, and their Statehouse reporters mentioned that there had been some discussion of Iowa’s Bottle Bill. Some legislators want to expand it; others want to repeal it.
It was then that a reporter hit the nail on the head! I wish I could recall exactly which reporter had this insight – my apologies in advance.
She noted that the Legislature could NEVER pass something like this today. Unfortunately, she is right on!
It requires consumers to pay an extra 5 cents per container – today that would be considered a “tax on hard working Iowans”. It requires businesses to redeem the containers – today this would be viewed as “job-killing regulations”. Today, the Bill would be decried as “government intrusion into the marketplace”. Today, the Bottle Bill would be dead on arrival.
Interestingly, the original Bottle Bill passed in the mid-70s through a Republican House and Republican Senate, and was signed by a Republican Governor. Though there was not unanimous support, there was bipartisan support.
Iowa’s Bottle Bill remains popular. Most Iowans approve of the positive impact it has had on reducing litter, pollution, and landfill waste. So why is it that we cannot expand the Bill? Why is it that our reporter is correct – the Legislature could NEVER pass something like this today?
The answer is really pretty simple. Today’s GOP legislators no longer work for Iowans. They work for a few well-financed, far-right special interests.
I support expansion of the Bottle Bill. It was good for Iowa in the 70s, and an update would be good for us today. But I’m not holding my breath.
*War With Iran? No Thanks!
I want to go on the record now – I oppose war with Iran.
Why do I oppose war with Iran? First, because I am not a moron. Secondly, because war is bad, and something to be avoided. Finally, because I am able to learn from our mistakes.
I oppose war with EVERY country unless the US has clearly been attacked by that country. Even then, any retaliatory strikes should be swift and short in duration.
People who advocate for war with Iran are fools, profiteers, or both.
*History of County Government in Iowa
The first two Iowa counties, Dubuque and Demoine (later changed to Des Moines) were created in 1834. These territorial divisions were made so people didn’t have to travel so far to pay their taxes, file a lawsuit, or to report a crime.
Dubuque and Des Moines counties were divided into townships and the “township-supervisor” form of government was established with three supervisors and 15 other officials, including six justices of the peace, selected by the Governor of Michigan to govern the county. This form of government faced many hindrances. There was a lack of cooperation, conferences of the supervisors were not held as frequently as needed due to road conditions and poor mail service, prompt action was usually impossible, and the system was criticized for being expensive.
Two years later, in 1836, Iowa became part of the Wisconsin Territory and the structure of its county government was sharply revised. The “county commissioner” system, which originated in Pennsylvania nearly a century before, was adopted. Under the new system, direct administrative power was removed from the township and vested in a commission. The county commission consisted of three members that were elected and authorized to conduct the county’s business. By 1851, all county officials were elected. Some legislators felt the county commission system was cumbersome, slow moving, and expensive. Others had little faith in the average citizen to govern.
In 1851, the Iowa Legislature abolished the county commissioner system and replaced it with a one-man “county judge” system. In 1860, after numerous studies and much debate, the judge system was terminated in favor of the township-supervisor form, similar to the one first utilized when Iowa was part of the Michigan Territory. In 1870, the township supervisor form of government was replaced with the “county board of supervisors” form of government.
The board of supervisors was in effect a county commission, but the Legislature decided to call them supervisors in order to avoid printing new stationery and forms. Under the new plan, the number of supervisors was reduced to three, with provisions for five or seven, if desired. They were to be elected at large or from districts as each county might decide; and they were to supervise the townships rather than represent them. This basic form of government has survived until today.
The county board of supervisors form of government has gone through numerous changes since 1870, but mostly due to the addition of new functions and responsibilities. Huge changes have occurred in the American lifestyle, which have in turn affected roads and welfare in Iowa.
The advent of motor vehicles at the turn of the century brought an immediate need for updating the road system and for counties to hire a county engineer. And the Depression proved that counties needed massive aid from the federal and state governments in order to properly care for the poor. The county has become the administrative unit for many social programs and new functions and responsibilities that have been added.
(Thanks to the Iowa State Association of Counties – ISAC- for this article.)
*Sounds of Friendship Concert
The Compeer Sounds of Friendship Concert is Saturday, March 31 at 7PM at St. Andrew Presbyterian Church.
The show features lots of great local musicians, and desserts from local bakeries. All proceeds go to help Compeer in its mission: reducing the loneliness and isolation of adults receiving mental health treatment.
Tickets are available by calling 338-7884 ext. 245, or e-mailing Karen Fox at kfox@meimhc.org.
*DID YOU KNOW? Johnson County SEATS made over 113,000 trips last year!
Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website-
www.johnson-county.com.
"Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents.
These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned.
If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you!
---Rod
March 18, 2012
Sullivan’s Salvos 3/20/12
In this edition:
*Animal Shelter
*County Budget
*History of County Government in the US
*Did You Know?
*Animal Shelter
There has been news of late over disagreements regarding the County’s contract with the Iowa City Animal Shelter. Please allow me to set the record straight.
I agree that we should have an excellent shelter. But I am extremely frustrated by the way in which Iowa City did business here. I have several complaints:
First, Iowa City has insinuated that Johnson County has historically paid nothing toward the shelter. That is totally false. Johnson County budgets $75,000 annually for shelter services. The County has paid for decades. What’s more, up until a few years ago, Johnson County covered the costs for all the small cities.
Secondly, the record keeping and billing the County has received from Iowa City has been sloppy at best. It is very hard to show a taxpayer what she is getting for her tax dollar. We have requested improved record keeping for several years; this situation offered us an opportunity to make that point more forcefully.
Thirdly, if Iowa City planned on asking the County to contribute, then they should have involved us from the beginning. Our first contact was a $500,000 take-it-or-leave-it bill. Then they acted offended when we wanted to negotiate.
Fourthly, there is precedence for NOT investing in the building. Johnson County recently built an expensive SEATS building. Iowa City contracts for SEATS service. We never expected Iowa City to pitch in on the capital expenses. Perhaps we should reconsider that.
Fifthly, I'm also frustrated by the take-it-or-leave-it attitude the City used when first presenting things. Iowa City would not even respond to a written request by the Board.
Finally, my biggest complaint. I think Iowa City should have come out with a "Phase One" that was much smaller, cheaper, and only used the FEMA money. Then they should have had a fundraising campaign that raised the money for a "Phase Two" that includes all the nice extras. If the governments pay for it all up front, why would citizens contribute through private fundraising?
As you may have seen, the Board is investigating an agreement with the Cedar Valley Humane Society in Cedar Rapids. I don’t know much about them, but I know that we owe it to the taxpayers to investigate all of our options.
That said, an agreement with Iowa City is still a distinct possibility. I simply felt that the public needed to understand some of our frustrations. I remain hopeful we can work something out.
*County Budget
The FY13 County Budget went to a vote on Thursday evening, March 8. It is available for viewing at the County website: www.johnson-county.com. Here are a few highlights:
Much of the County budget is a pass through of state and federal funds. The actual tax askings part of the budget is up about $1 million dollars to just over $44 million.
Taxes actually go DOWN on 15/21 classes of property. Commercial, Industrial, and Ag properties will all pay less in FY13 than they did in FY12. This is not necessarily purposeful on our part; it is the result of a complicated state formula.
Residential taxpayers will see an increase of about 4.1%. The owner of a $100,000 home in Iowa City will see the County portion of her tax bill go up about $13.51.
This increase comes from three primary things – 1. Increased spending on roads and bridges; 2. A State-mandated increase in Mental Health funding; and 3. Increased spending at the Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC). (Don’t get me started on the JECC!) Only one of those decisions was within our control.
Property values continue to increase, though at a much slower rate than in the past. New construction growth continues, though also at a slower rate. County buildings are in relatively good shape; voters will have the opportunity to decide on a new justice center in the fall of this year. County financial reserves exceed our self-imposed guidelines; we should be set in case of a “rainy day”. I think the County is well on the way to a AAA bond rating. Our 6 bargaining units have all agreed to three-year contracts that contain raises averaging right around 2% per year. That helps us in terms of longer range budget planning. The overall financial picture in Johnson County is quite strong.
A wise person once said, “budgets demonstrate priorities.” Keeping that in mind, I am proud of the fact that I lobbied for and received a small increase in human services funding. This was (and remains) a campaign promise of mine. Due to tough economic times, local agencies such as UAY, DVIP, Crisis Center, and others had not received increased funding in a few years. The increase is not much, but I feel that it demonstrates a recognition of the fact that their services are even MORE vital during difficult economic times.
Budgets are exercises in compromise, so the proposed budget contains a few things I really like, as well as a few things I don’t. But that is how budgets work. All in all, I am pretty pleased with the results.
What about you? What do you like/dislike about the County budget?
*History of County Government in the US
The origin of the American county is from the French word “conte,” meaning the domain of a count.
The American county is defined by Webster as “the largest territorial division for local government within a state of the U.S.”
Webster’s definition is based on the Anglo-Saxon county, sometimes called a shire. The head of the shire in the British Isles was the Shire Reeve, the origin for today’s county sheriff. Serving a dual function, the shire acted as the administrative arm of the national government as well as the citizen’s local government.
The county came to America with the first colonies in Virginia, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. In early American colonial times, the basic unit of local government in the New England colonies was the town. In the southern states the county developed without townships as subdivisions. As the nation expanded, new states tended to adopt either the New England approach or the southern plan.
Counties were established to carry out a variety of functions not performed by smaller towns. When our national government was formed, the Constitution did not provide for local governments, leaving the matter of local government to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state.
As the United States grew westward, county government developed as the basic unit of local government with responsibility for delivery of public services in large regions containing widely dispersed rural populations.
After World War I, population growth, suburban development, and the government reform movement strengthened the role of local governments. Those developments set the stage for post World War II urbanization. Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government. The counties began providing an ever-widening range of services. These trends continue to this day.
(Thanks to the Iowa State Association of Counties – ISAC- for this article.)
*DID YOU KNOW? 41% of Iowans use recreational trails. (Source: Iowa Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.)
Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website-
www.johnson-county.com.
"Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents.
These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned.
If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you!
---Rod
March 3, 2012
Sullivan’s Salvos 3/6/12
In this edition:
*Justice Center Held Hostage
*Prairie Preview
*Sutliff Bridge Authority Fundraiser
*No Salvos Next Week!
*Did You Know?
*Justice Center Held Hostage
The proposed Justice Center was dealt a blow this week when Supervisor Neuzil decided to play politics. Here is some background, and my take on things:
The Board had recently worked hard to come up with the specific elements that would be included in the Justice Center. We worked with an architect and a cost estimator. We whittled things down to the point that doing any less would be penny wise and pound-foolish. The final amount was $48 million. That is pretty much the minimum cost to do this and do it right.
Then – out of the blue - Terrence decided that he would not support bonding for more than $39 million. He demanded cuts from the rest of the County budget. I have some serious problems with the way this all happened.
First, $39 million is NOT a magic number! The origin of the number is almost comical – we had seen a very rough estimate of $50 million. Iowa City Councilor Connie Champion said off the cuff, “People won’t vote for more than $40 million.” I noted that retailers sell things for $19.99 rather than $20 for psychological reasons; Connie then threw out $39 million. So the number is hardly scientific. We used it as a goal, and the architects tried to get there. They couldn’t. But remember - $39 million is extremely unscientific!
Secondly, he has had literally YEARS to bring this up. Yet he waited until now? When we were interviewing architects, they all expressed doubt as to whether or not $39 million could get the job done. They all promised to get as close as they could, but expressed reservations. Terrence could have drawn this line in the sand way back then. This is awfully late in the game!
Thirdly, he stated that, “if we want the public to approve a new Justice Center, we need to sacrifice”. He said cuts should be made to the next few budgets. Yet when pushed, he could come up with ZERO dollars to cut. ZERO! I am willing to listen to any and all proposals to cut taxes. But you have to have the courage to spell out the specific things you propose cutting. He does not have the guts to lay out ONE CUT!
Fourthly, his numbers kept changing. We had to cut $4 million in two years, then he could go from $39 million to $44 million, then it was $40.9 million – it was a moving target.
Fifthly, we had just finished the proposed County budget for FY13. I do not see where I can cut $2 million. If I saw $2 million in cuts, I can assure you, I would have urged $2 million less in taxes.
Sixthly, Terrence wanted to save money in future years for the Justice Center. As was pointed out many times, we cannot commit a future Board. To bank on a future savings of millions of dollars is fiscally irresponsible. Contractors who bid projects must deal in realities, not future promises. This does NOTHING to cut the cost of the Justice Center. It does NOTHING to reduce the price tag for taxpayers. It simply kicks the can down the road, creating a problem for a future Board.
Seventhly, he then brought up the idea of doing several separate bonds. Be very clear – this does NOTHING to reduce the cost of the Justice Center. It does NOTHING to reduce the price tag for taxpayers. All it does is obfuscate the real cost of the project while giving voters less of a voice.
Eighthly, he claimed others refused to “compromise”. The AUDACITY! We had just finished weeks of compromise, including hours that very day! To cite a couple examples – Supervisor Harney wanted to spend $55 million; he compromised considerably. Supervisor Rettig wanted to only spend $10-15 million and only do the Courthouse expansion; she compromised considerably. To wait until that has all played out, then pull this stunt… it isn’t how people of good faith do business.
Look, you do not have to take my word on this. Audio exists for every meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Just go to www.johnson-county.com, then Board of Supervisors, then Agendas and minutes. The meeting was 7 PM on Wednesday, February 29. Listen for yourself.
So why did he do this? I do not know. You’ll need to ask him. I know that every Supervisor likes to come across as the guardian of taxpayer dollars. The press releases have already been written with that spin; it appears the Gazette bought into some of this crap. Sometimes, people are willing to do almost anything to earn that reputation, including putting important projects in jeopardy.
Look, I am not thrilled by calling out a coworker. But this was a VERY bad deal. Plus, this is really important, and people need to know what is going on.
If you cannot tell, this makes me angry. It is reckless and irresponsible behavior. We already have architects hired. Taxpayers deserve better than Supervisors posturing and playing politics.
Meanwhile, I have no idea where this project is headed. We had planned on a November vote – the whole thing may be on hold now.
*Prairie Preview
The 29th annual Prairie Preview is Thursday, March 8 at Parkview Church in Iowa City.
Doors open at 6:30, and at 7:30 there is a keynote entitled “The Personal Prairie” by John T. Price from the University of Nebraska.
I absolutely LOVE the Prairie Preview, but I am bummed! The Board of Supervisors has a meeting that night, so I’ll miss my first Preview in well over a decade. I hope you can enjoy it in my stead!
For further information, contact Tammy Richardson at the Johnson County Heritage Trust, 338-7030 or info@jcht.org.
*Sutliff Bridge Authority Fundraiser
Join the Sutliff Bridge Authority (SBA) at their annual winter fundraiser Saturday, March 10 at the Solon American Legion.
Dance to the great DJ services of Schmo Sounds from 8 pm to midnight. There will also be a 50/50, raffle and silent auction. If you have an item you'd like to donate, let a SBA member know.
$5 donation at the door, profits of event will be donated to the future maintenance of the bridge via the bridge's Endowment and Charitable Giving Fund established at the Community Foundation of Johnson County. http://communityfoundationofjohnsoncounty.org/
*No Salvos Next Week!
Salvos takes a week off next week. Expect your next edition (dated 3/20/12) over the weekend of March 17-18. Enjoy your week off!
And if I do not see you – Happy St. Patrick’s Day!
*DID YOU KNOW? In 2011, 51 metro Atlanta jurisdictions voted on whether to allow Sunday alcohol sales. 50 out of 51 approved the measure. (Source: American City and County.)
Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website-
www.johnson-county.com.
"Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents.
These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned.
If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you!
---Rod
|
|
