The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors raised pointed questions on Monday, July 13th about the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services office’s use of a county-owned building on South Maple Street, challenging the arrangement over expenses, space utilization, and whether the county should continue subsidizing a state agency.
Supervisors met with Iowa HHS Supervisor Emily Enyeart, with Iowa Department of Management representative Tracy Sunquist joining via Zoom. The HHS office operates out of a county-owned building west of Prestige Care Center and serves Jefferson, Washington, and Van Buren counties, with 17 employees assigned to the Jefferson County location, according to Sunquist.
Supervisor Susie Drish, who had recently toured the building with the other supervisors on Tuesday, July 7th, told Enyeart it appeared much of the space was going unused and asked whether the county could reclaim several of the rooms. Enyeart responded that not all employees were present during the tour due to a training taking place in Ottumwa. Supervisor Joe Ledger questioned why Jefferson County was providing office space for workers serving other counties, while Supervisor Lee Dimmitt said he was unaware of any formal 28E agreements between Jefferson County and those other counties for HHS services.
The issue has taken on added urgency because Jefferson County will soon need to find space for its public health employees once the Fairfield Fire Department moves into its new fire station, as the two departments currently share space in the same building. Dimmitt said the county needs to find space for its own employees without taking on additional costs, and suggested HHS could free up room by shifting some staff to Washington or Van Buren counties. He acknowledged he had not yet spoken with supervisors in those counties but wanted to open the conversation, noting that this was just a brainstorming idea.
Dimmitt went further, raising the possibility of eliminating the county’s financial contribution to the HHS office entirely. “The other option I’ve kicked around, and I’m not trying to be a horse’s patoot, is to eliminate your office altogether and take that $50,000 out of our budget,” he said. “I don’t think the county should be paying for state offices. That’s not a reflection on you, I just think the state should pay its bills.”
Ledger also took issue with the way HHS handles purchases, noting that the county receives bills after the fact without being consulted — including a recent purchase of new window blinds.
Sunquist asked whether county departments seek permission for every expense, to which Dimmitt responded that those are county departments — HHS is not. Sunquist cited Iowa code, which she said requires supervisors to treat HHS employees as they would county employees. Dimmitt acknowledged the law but pushed back on its intent. “That’s what the state of Iowa wants, but that’s not what Lee Dimmitt wants,” he said. “We’re being told by the state what money we could spend and how much money we have to spend. It makes no sense to me to sit here and have a conversation about window blinds and things of that nature, that we are not at least consulted on, in a building that belongs to us. We should be able to determine what’s in that building and what’s not in that building.”
When Dimmitt suggested the state simply pay for future expenses like the blinds directly, Sunquist said she was uncertain how to make that happen. “I’m not sure how we can help you today,” she said. “We certainly want to do what we can to help, but they’re just there to do their jobs every day. And they’re serving the citizens of Jefferson County. I understand there have been changes from the state, and not from us and not from HHS, and I understand you’re trying to do what you can fiscally.”
The backdrop to Monday’s discussion stretches back to 2010, when Jefferson County bought the Maple Street building to keep the HHS office in Fairfield after the state floated the idea of moving it to Washington. Dimmitt said the county’s reasons for doing so made more sense at the time than they do today, pointing to the state’s increasingly tight grip on local government finances — including the recently enacted two percent annual revenue growth cap — as a reason to revisit the arrangement. The supervisors left Monday’s meeting without taking any formal action but made clear the conversation is far from over.
