Ryan Moss, deputy civil assistant in the Johnson County Attorney's Office, presented a legal overview Thursday of how a joint county-city authority could be formed to build and manage a public-safety facility. Moss told the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee that Iowa Code section 346.27 (as cited in the meeting) and related practice require specific votes by each governing body on several items, including the site selection, articles of incorporation and any future amendments.

Moss outlined other statutory and practical steps: selection of a third commissioner to serve alongside one appointee from each governing body; each body's future concurrence on a lease for the space the city and county would occupy; the authority's adoption of a call for a revenue-bond election and the need for the city council and county board to concur on that call; and the possibility that transfer or conveyance of the facility after bond retirement could itself require voter approval. "Each governing body has to, of course, agree to a lease at some point in the future with the authority for the space that they intend to occupy," Moss said.

Moss said the law allows but does not require that a city council member or county supervisor be appointed as the respective governing body's commissioner; he also said commissioner positions are unpaid though the authority can hire staff. He noted practice from other counties (Woodbury, Scott) where bylaws and articles address removal and compensation issues and cautioned that narrow bylaws are often necessary to avoid long-term disputes.

Moss and committee members discussed schedule constraints. Moss identified an August 2026 deadline for ballot-language submission tied to issuing revenue bonds; he said an October 1 date appearing in earlier committee minutes reflected a timeline goal and that the city's meeting calendar made Oct. 7 a workable alternative for the city council. Laura Bergus, an Iowa City council member attending the meeting, said the city's next regular meeting after the joint session is Oct. 7 and that council cadence informed their internal timing.

Committee members asked legal and operational questions: whether appointments follow the person or the office (Moss said appointments follow the person and that appointees who leave a covered office commonly resign from the commission); whether the articles should be finalized before naming commissioners (members debated sequence and the need for involvement of appointees in drafting); and what decisions require later approval by the board or council. Moss recommended that staff from both legal offices begin drafting articles and bylaws and noted both local bond counsel and external financing experts will be needed later in the process.

The presentation did not produce any final approvals. Staff offered to provide examples from other counties and said Shive Hattery could present to the city council at an upcoming meeting. Moss and the chair emphasized that if both bodies decide to proceed the articles of incorporation should be developed collaboratively and then returned to each governing body for formal consideration.

Why it matters: Forming a joint authority would concentrate construction and procurement responsibilities in the authority and requires a sequence of statutory votes by the city council and county board. Those votes, and the eventual ballot question on revenue bonds, set milestones that affect schedule, public communication and financing strategies.

Next steps discussed at the meeting included preparing draft articles of incorporation, exchanging examples from Woodbury and Scott counties, and allowing city and county attorneys to begin negotiations on bylaws and related documents; the city may consider moving forward at its early October meeting.