Tuesday, June 7 is Primary Election day in Scott County. In the Primary, there are five Democratic candidates for Scott County Board of Supervisors vying for three positions on the November 8 General Election ballot: Karl Drapeaux, Brinson Kinzer (incumbent), Joseph C. Miller, Jazmin Newton, and Dawson Shea VanWinkle. There are four Republican candidates for Scott County Board of Supervisor vying for three spots on the General Election ballot: Jean Dickson, Jennifer McAndrew Lane, John Maxwell (incumbent), and Ross Paustian. All candidates were provided the following questionnaire. The responses from four Democrats, followed by the only Republican primary candidate that participated are printed below. As, Editor Kathleen McCarthy writes in the commentary Political Expediency Is Not Political Courage, "Candidates who refused to respond to these pre-election questionnaires have sent a message of insecurity, non-commitment, and most importantly, the appearance of a curious disrespect toward voters, and their own candidacies. And if these silent candidates won't engage with voters via Q&As before the primary elections, voters have every right to be concerned that those candidates' engagement with the public (should they win) will likely not improve."
Public Meeting Broadcasts & Recordings
A silver lining of the Quad Cities' COVID-1984 Era has been the Scott County Board of Supervisors finally figured out how to easily and cost-effectively video/audio record and publish their public meetings. Scott County government implemented live Internet video-broadcast meetings to accommodate the COVID requirements of distancing, closing public facilities, etc., to secure federal funding grants. After years of the public demanding such easily accessible technology be deployed for more transparency and public access, now there was no excuse. Today, COVID is no longer an emergency and requires no extreme mitigations, regardless of grant strings. Despite this fact, county staff and sometimes elected officials opt for the “stay at home in your jammies” mode and “Zoom” in their participation.
Residents will no longer tolerate having their tax dollars spent outside their purview, having every right to participate, observe, measure, and hold accountable both elected and administrative personnel conducting the business of our county.
1) Will you support the continued video recording and publishing of all county public meetings?
Drapeaux: Yes, I am very supportive of live Internet video broadcasting, it gives access to all Scott County to be able to attend and speak.
Miller: Very much so. I support the use of any technology that allows people to become more involved in the governance of the county.
Newton: I strongly support continued video recording and the broadcast of all county meetings. It is unfortunate it took a worldwide pandemic for Scott County to utilize the technology that is widely available, but I am glad to see it was finally implemented. I fully support such measures continuing permanently. Scott County should broadcast meetings online to make sure that it is accessible and accountable to the members of our community.
Lane: Absolutely! It is important in this political environment that public meetings are made public. I would also support flexibility in meetings. I, myself, am restricted from attending many meetings and have to research after the fact; due to my work schedule. Recorded meetings keep Residents of Scott County abreast of information and it also allows Employees of Scott County to view any information that would interest and affect them. The Board of Supervisors are Servants of the Public.
2) By what criteria will you allow staff to attend public meetings virtually?
Drapeaux: If access allows form their device and it is not interfering with their workload, I do not believe that would be an issue.
Kinzer: If they are on a scheduled vacation and need to weigh in, if there is another, or continuation of the current pandemic, and by proclamation of the Governor declaring a public safety issue, or if the employee is just sick but has vital information to present to the board.
Miller: First of all, I do not believe that attending a meeting online necessarily constitutes a latent desire for an individual to “stay at home in your jammies” and perhaps it is time for us to stop thinking about the nature of work within the constraints that we have before (myself included). I think that the true state of nature of our post-pandemic era is that now that our general populace has experienced the benefit of attending meetings online, they are right to question the added value of attending in person. Matters of child care, public health, and mental health have to be taken into account here. Ultimately, the use of online-meeting technology makes it such that the meetings are more accessible to everyone.
Newtwon: Staff should attend in person as frequently as possible. While having the capability to attend remotely on occasion, I do believe there is a benefit to being physically present when at all possible. The main use of video recording should be to provide the pubic with transparency and accessibility. During the pandemic, there was need to socially distance and therefore virtual meetings were a prudent way to handle the situation. However, now that we are able to safely return to in-person activities, in-person attendance should be strongly encouraged.
Lane: There are departments in Scott County that are never 0800-1600. Recorded Meetings and an Advanced Agenda would allow County Employees to take part. County Staff would be allowed to attend if they have business to discuss. County Staff who have essential functions should be allowed to attend virtually.
3) By what criteria will you invoke privilege of virtually attending a public meeting?
Drapeaux: I believe that you should be able to participate as if you were attending the meeting in person. The is dictated by Roberts Rules of Order as any meeting should be ran.
Kinzer: By the same criteria in question two. However, if there is no need to hold virtual, then the meetings need to be held in person and in the evening when the public can attend.
Miller: If elected, I have every intention to attend all meetings in person. For me, I do see the value of meeting face to face – just ask my students at St. Ambrose. Showing up and being in the room when decisions get made has been a hallmark of my career … and my character.
Newton: I will attend the meetings in person as much as possible. I enjoy social interaction before, during, and after meetings. I do think that circumstances come up that merit attending virtually from time to time, such as illness or a schedule conflict that may arise on limited occasions. However, I believe such should be kept to a minimum. I do believe the times that the hearings are currently held are not the most conducive for working families and that the board should set better times for the supervisor meetings.
Lane: The public needs more than one opportunity to make comments. I was shut down and not allowed to speak during the hearing of Supervisor John Maxwell. All efforts should be made to allow the public to be heard.
4) Will you support actions by the Board to expand these newfound transparency resources to include video/audio broadcasting and publishing recordings of additional county government meetings such as the Emergency Management Agency (EMA), Scott Emergency Communications Center (SECC) and Scott County Health Department board meetings? If yes, why? If no, why not? Please be specific.
Drapeaux: Yes and No. I believe every meeting needs to be as transparent as possible, there are items that my need discussed that could impact these departments safety, and that in its self is very important to keep the county employees safe as best as possible.
Kinzer: Yes. No reason not to. All entities work for and are part of Scott County.
Miller: Yes, indeed I would, insofar as there would be no added risk or exposure to security breaches in doing so. I am in full support of granting our citizenry more agency in county governance.
Newton: Absolutely. Transparency resources such as video/audio broadcasting existed long before the pandemic and such measures were being utilized by other counties in Iowa. I think that government should always be transparent. Making all meetings available to the public promotes transparency in our government and reinforces confidence in our democratic system.
Lane: Yes, the pandemic taught me how important these departments are in my life and to the Residents of Scott County. All public meetings should be recorded and made accessible to anyone who wants to view them.
Sausage Making: County Administrator Meetings Prior to Board Meetings
Prior County Administrators have conducted and the current Administrator conducts regular unpublished private meetings with Supervisors regarding county business and the pending Committee of the Whole agenda items. These meetings are held with few enough elected Supervisors so that a quorum cannot be called, and open meetings law is not violated.
Details about and key discussions on the pending agenda items are therefore managed and often generally agreed upon before the public Committee of the Whole (COW) and regular public Board meetings. While this may expedite the public proceedings, this practice is in part what has led to a long and historic appearance of “rubber stamping” of what staff proposes to our elected officials behind closed doors.
The civically engaged public's expectation is that the business of the county, including the nuances and issues informing the agenda items, resolutions and voting, be addressed openly and at arm's length during prescribed meetings, so that we the people can fully understand the rationale influencing county representatives' decisions, both elected and administrative.
The City of Davenport staff, Mayor and Council were once quietly famous for their behind closed door meetings just shy of a quorum of elected officials held prior to public meetings. When enough citizens and the local media called it out, the City staff implemented bi-weekly public meetings called “Management Update and Mayor/Council Discussion,” with a published agenda and published minutes. Thus, the public is encouraged and empowered to see the “sausage being made.”
5) Do you support the practice of select Supervisor private pre-meetings regarding Board agenda items with the County Administrator that are not publicly announced and not publicly accessible? If yes, why? If no, why not? Please be specific.
Drapeaux: I do not believe that it is proper or fair practice to have performed, if it is meant for the public, it should stay as public discussion.
Kinzer: Yes. I currently do not attend these meetings and have not for a long time. When I was first elected, I did attend. However, my opinion was, and is, what is discussed at "Agenda Review" can be discussed at the Committee of the Whole.
Meeting publicly. This issue would support my stance to move the meetings to the evening when the public can attend.
Miller: In much the same way that I believe that any organization benefits from the discussion of strategy before critical decisions are ultimately made, I do believe that it is in the best interest of the county that supervisors meet to explore the relevant factors of the cases they decide upon. These meetings, I found during my time in Davenport City Council, are critical in terms of uniform facts being presented to all relevant parties, and to allow such parties to ask questions for clarification.
Newton: No. Unfortunately, such practices give the appearance of proverbial “rubber stamping” and such is not conducive to transparent and accessible government. I can certainly appreciate the need for efficiency and organization, but not at the cost of losing the public’s trust. The people of Scott County have every right (with few exceptions such as employee matters) to know and understand the underlying reasons that form the agenda and county business.
Lane: I firmly am against rubber stamping! This behavior is a reason why I am now involved in politics. Administrators do not need to be in a position of Czar. Czars have been lobbying the Board for years. Others should not be doing the work of the Board. We are elected by the people to do this. It is a problem when “Sausage Making” occurs with a select few; rather than the public. My answer would be the same as above. I do think this would be an excellent example to set office hours for the public. I do think the Board Members should do their homework and be out in the environments of each department of the County to learn about what they are voting on. My job allows me to frequently be involved on the ground floor of the Scott County Jail, the Scott County Deputies, the Scott County Community Services, and many other services offered in the Administrative Building.
6) If such meetings are proven or determined to be critical to the county government and its staff's efficient and timely functioning, do you support making such Supervisor meetings with management staff public along with agenda items and minutes, similar to the City of Davenport's practice? If yes, why? If no, why not? Please be specific.
Drapeaux: I believe that is a view that could be looked at, as I have said in another question it depends on the situation of if it will affect the safety or privacy of the county employees. Their rights are valued just as any private employee would want.
Kinzer: Yes. Again, have the discussion at the Committee of the Whole Meeting and move the meetings to the evening when the public can attend.
Miller: I do. Again, as a representative of the people of Scott County, I think the people should be given an opportunity to see and hear what represents them.
Newton: I believe such organizational meetings are likely vital to the continued efficiency of the county’s business. Open meeting laws should be followed and practices to circumvent the law should not be utilized. I am supportive of finding a mechanism which would help maintain efficiency while adhering to the law. I do think utilizing a method similar to the City of Davenport would prove a viable solution.
Lane: Yes, transparency is important.
7) Would you support/oppose publishing a running status report on county expenditures, updated with newly legislated and/or approved expenditures for each department every cycle, posted on the County's Web site? If yes, why? If no, why not? Please be specific.
Drapeaux: I don’t not support or oppose this, but everyone has the right to contact the county and request this information, it is already publicly available.
Kinzer: Yes. All bills and expenditures are public knowledge.
Miller: In principle, absolutely. However, I am familiar with the reality that provision of such expenditures as a running report may require outsized funding and resources that may prove to be untenable and antithetical to responsive county provision of services.
Newton: Yes. The people of Scott County have the right to know where their tax dollars are being spent. Publishing reports on county expenditures and keeping such reports updated promotes the utmost transparency.
Lane: Yes, it would be important to be transparent; however, there are revolving or last minute expenditures that would not make it the most current. These would be reported in the next cycle.
8) Would you support/oppose publishing on the County's Web site all federal, state, and private grants applied for by each county department, including all grant applications and all approved grant contracts so the public is privy to grant award amounts and all conditions and liabilities of each grant that obligate Scott Countians (including penalties for noncompliance)? If yes, why? If no, why not? Please be specific.
Drapeaux: I do believe this is something that should be published, but again everyone has the right to contact the county and request this information, it is already publicly available.
Kinzer: Yes. These grants come before the Board of Supervisors prior to filing and for approval. They are listed in the minutes, from discussion, which posted on the Web site. The specifics of the grants can be listed as well.
Miller: No. Only for approved grants. I do support that information on grant applications be made available to the public via FOIA (upon request).
Newton: Yes. I would support publishing information on all federal, state, and private grants on Scott County’s Web site so that such information is accessible. I believe transparency is paramount to an effective government. The people of Scott Count have a right to know what grants are being utilized by our government and the conditions and liabilities that may be attached to each grant.
Lane: I would support this! CTCL Money was a perfect example of this. Scott County Residents need to be made aware of any outside sources that are impacting how our county is run.
Election Integrity and County General Policy 30
Facebook's Mark Zuckerburg's non-profit foundation injected $450 million into targeted public-election offices in swing states to successfully influence the outcome of the 2020 election. No self-respecting voter, whether Democrat or Republican, should tolerate this unprecedented manipulation to undermine local or national elections. Americans need to return to fiercely protecting how votes are cast and counted regardless of political party affiliation. Politicians good, bad, and ugly, come and go. Voting is our means to ensure it. It is one of only three political superpowers that belong exclusively to the people: the power of the purse, the power of the jury, and the power of the vote. We need to protect “one man, one vote” with the ferocity it deserves, or it is just a matter of time before we the people are truly a voiceless, faceless, powerless herd.
Just prior to the 2020 election, then-Auditor Roxanna Moritz requested Board approval to accept a $286,000 private grant from the Chicago-based NGO Center for Tech and Civic Life, funded by Facebook's Mark Zuckerburg. Moritz's department is in charge of among other things operating all elections in Scott County. And she applied for and received additional Zucker-bucks of $140,000 for a total of $426,000 in private funding for Scott County elections.
Scott County Attorney Robert Cusack wrote a letter to the Scott County Administrator Mahesh Sharma stating that due to County General Policy 30, Auditor Moritz's request for Board approval to accept a private grant did not require Supervisor approval. Here is Cusack's letter: RCReader.com/y/cusack and here is Policy 30: RCReader.com/y/policy30. Two Scott County concerned citizens filed a lawsuit to protest such private funding of public elections, and lost in the Iowa courts. The ruling stated in part, “In short, even if the counties violated the law, or the social contract, by accepting private election grants that included some conditions, plaintiffs have failed to show a concrete and particularized injury beyond the generalized grievance arising from a violation of the law.” https://www.Leagle.com/decision/infdco20210129b15
There is no dispute to date that the Board of Supervisors can elect to modify the General Policy 30 to disallow private grants for any county department or division operated and governed by an elected official such as the Auditor, Treasurer, Recorder, or Sheriff, without Board approval. This policy modification would make the court's ruling moot, and make future private funding of county run elections (or any other county department operations) subject to the Board of Supervisors' approval.
9) Do you support or oppose modifying General Policy 30 to prohibit private funding of public functions without the Board of Supervisors' approval? If yes, why? If no, why. Please be specific.
Drapeaux: I do not believe this General Policy needs to be changed, as the ruling says “In short, even if the counties violated the law, or the social contract, by accepting private election grants that included some conditions, plaintiffs have failed to show a concrete and particularized injury beyond the generalized grievance arising from a violation of the law.” The law has not and was not in this case found to be broken, the system is working as it was intended to do. I am a big believer in management but not a big believer in micro-management there are elected department heads for this reason.
Kinzer: YES. However, the grant that is being referenced was promoted on the Secretary of States website and by their staff at said time. I know this as I personally went on the site and followed up with a call.
Miller: In short, I agree with the conclusions of Attorney Cusack. There was no articulable harm in Auditor Moritz seeking that external funding, nor was there any need for the board to approve such. That funding was meant to make our vote more accessible – we cannot be apprehensive to allow it to be so.
Newton: I oppose modifying the General Policy 30 to prohibit private funding of public functions without the Board of Supervisor’s approval. The Auditor, Treasurer, Recorder and Sheriff are all elected officials. The people elected them to serve Scott County. Each one of these officials is in the best position to make decisions concerning their office. The board is there to oversee the budget and how taxpayer dollars are spent, not to dictate how each elected official executes her or his office. If the people of Scott County do not agree with a certain grant that an elected official has applied for/received, then the people of Scott County have the opportunity to voice their opinion at the next election.
Lane: ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT!! Scott County Elections belong to Scott County Residents; no matter what party the Auditor is or the Secretary of State. One cannot have transparency and faith in the election process when private funding is allowed to interfere. Scott County Board of Supervisors would not need to approve or disapprove; because it should not be allowed, period.
Emergency Measures & Medical Interventions
Court rulings are finally emerging relative to medical safety and/or medical efficacy of masks, vaccines, and extreme mitigations relative to COVID-19, all of which are causing more harm to humanity than COVID. It is highly probable that more such challenges will eventually prevail, resulting in court decisions that trigger crushing liability for those who recklessly complied/enforced medical interventions, especially for monetary gain via federal grant monies.
10) Under what circumstances, if at all, will you support Scott County enforcing medical intervention (masking, vaccines, boosters, etc.) mandates as a condition for employment within the County government? Please be specific.
Drapeaux: I am not a believer in people being told they must get a vaccine or booster, but I am a huge believer that everyone has the right to a safe work place and not have to worry about taking a sickness home to someone that my have an underlying illness in their family that my cause them to become sick and possibly die. No family should have to have that linger in the back of their mind, and if you choose not to get the vaccine, that is your choice. But as far as wearing face coverings and required to be tested once a week, those requirements should be implanted no differently if you had a flu or cold.
Kinzer: No. Unless the Governor of the State of Iowa, by proclamation, declares masks, then it shall be. Vaccinations and boosters are personal choice and should not be mandated in county of city government. However, I made my personal choice to get both.
Miller: I do not believe we should set policy based upon what we wish were true. I support that Scott County closely follow the guidelines put out by the CDC, the health department, and epidemiologists. I support listening to experts.
Newton: The government has a duty to always consider the benefits to the public and its employees. Public health and personal choice considerations must be carefully weighed before making any decisions to employ any regulations that may infringe upon people’s liberties. I would strongly consider all empirical evidence and research before making any decision.
Lane: I took time off work to be a part of the meeting regarding masks. The Public of Scott County is in charge of their own health. It is not the business of Personnel Administrators to ask anything about the health of Scott County Employees, period. Masks are a means to control factions of society. If employees choose to wear masks that is their concern. Scott County Residents and Iowans need to be trusted to make their own decisions.
11) Do you support or oppose Scott County employing a Medical Director that is also compensated by pharmaceutical industry companies? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Drapeaux: I am not a huge supporter of employing a Medical Director the is being compensated by the pharmaceutical industry, but I also do not know this person well enough to answer the question with a yes or no, for all I know this person may have grown up with a family member or their self that had a life-threatening disease and is working on a groundbreaking medicine with a team to cure it.
Kinzer: The Board of Health is made up of a very passionate and certainly very intelligent individuals. Seeking such individuals is not taken lightly. When the Board of Health's recommendation is to hire the best candidate, whomever that is, then their wishes should be supported.
Miller: I believe our current arrangement with a Scott County Health Director is sufficient. Moreover, I have perceived some brave leadership by Amy Thoreson in this role throughout the pandemic. As for the source of compensation for this role, I pledge to remain vigilant of conflicts of interest.
Newton: I think it is important to avoid any conflicts of interest, or even the appearance of a conflict. All sources of compensation should be carefully reviewed.
Lane: Doctors are often visited by pharmaceutical reps. This is a shame, but often the bread and butter of big pharma. I do believe this needs to be investigated. I do oppose it, however, we would need to investigate if that is occurring.
Local Governance Issues
For decades, the United Nations Agenda 30 (renamed from United Nations Agenda 21), has supported the consolidation of smaller public sectors such as counties, and in some cases municipalities, to combine into larger regional entities for more centralized operational efficiencies. In some cases, it would be prudent to share resources (a small county or township does not necessarily need its own water sanitation facility or landfill so consolidation appears to make sense). Duplicative services can be inefficient and costly, and combining them could result in real savings. The question becomes: For whom?
Disquiet can occur when larger entities, such as Scott County, consolidate with smaller counties for services, and subsequently are forced to absorb a disproportionate financial burden for those counties' services, and for the potential dilution of services due to an already strained pool of mental health providers. Such concern has been expressed over the consolidation of mental health services from individual counties here in Eastern Iowa into a larger region.
12) Do you agree/disagree that Scott County should pursue consolidating governmental units and duplicative services with cities like Davenport and Bettendorf and towns such as Donahue and Eldridge? If yes, why? If no, why not? Please be specific.
Drapeaux: I do not agree to ever consolidating local and state law enforcement and there should be an elected position from the people, for the people to elect the Sheriff, the statement says it “one of the advantages of local law enforcement is the connection that bonds police officers to their community. It is an intangible that underpins one of the most important civic relationships in our constitutional republic.” Unless there we very compelling reasons to absorb the smaller towns for public safety, but I would never agree to a centralized federal police force.
Kinzer: No. This idea has been talked about in the past. I believe the services would not be equal and taxes for said services would not be equitable.
Miller: I do agree that the pursuit of consolidation is worthwhile. We have an opportunity to provide much more cohesive services throughout the county with regard to public health, emergency services, and public transportation. Truth to tell, there are some concerns we will share with regard to services due to a lack of provisioning and equitability for all of our communities, but that is a separate, albeit tractable problem with which we must contend.
Newton: It depends. The joint exercising of governmental powers which would allow Scott County and local governments to enter into shared service agreements is governed by Iowa Code 28E. When governing, there should be a case by case analysis of each situation and or scenario that is being entertained. There is no easy answer or one size fits all approach to this very complex issues that is presented. I support shared service agreements where they make sense. I understand that such agreements allow for more efficient and effective use of taxpayer resources. After all, the Scott County Board is responsible to the taxpayers in ensuring each dollar is spent wisely. The Scott County Emergency Communication Center is an example of where it could be beneficial to have shared service agreements. As a county, we should work closely with all municipalities and ensure we are collaborating and partnering where it is prudent. However, the board has a responsibility to ensure that such does not come at the expense of the residents of Scott County. Every service must be examined case by case and thoroughly discussed with all those involved. It is vital we make sure no part of Scott County becomes underserved. Collaboration is about maximizing benefit and services for all of Scott County.
Another UN Agenda 30 goal is to eventually consolidate all local and state law enforcement into a centralized federal police force, first eliminating the elected position of Sheriff altogether. One of the advantages of local law enforcement is the connection that bonds police officers to their community. It is an intangible that underpins one of the most important civic relationships in our constitutional republic. The UN's first step, however, might be to encourage the consolidation of county and cities law enforcement, including the smaller municipalities such as Eldridge, Donahue, etc.
13) Would you support/oppose any version of consolidation of local law enforcement, including the elimination of sheriff as the only elected position for law enforcement/peace officer? If yes, why? If no, why not? Please be specific.
Drapeaux: I would never support the elimination of sheriff, this is a very important role and could never be eliminated.
Kinzer: Absolutely not. My entire time serving the public on the Scott County Board of Supervisors, I have supported the freely elected Scott County Sheriff and the department as a whole. I am the only current member on the board who has been an outspoken supporter for funding the Sheriff (not defunding), which equates to more deputies on the street, more correction officers, more bailiffs, more training, updated equipment, continue policy of take-home vehicles which provides rapid response, etc. All the while not requiring a taxpayer paid study (asked for by my colleagues) to support what the Sheriff and Command Staff know to provide public safety.
Miller: Look. I’m already on record for being in support of exploring equitable consolidation of public services throughout our region. But the question of local policing contains a lot more variables to consider. Yes, the ideal of local policing is that it results in a more adaptable force. But it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see the downside of a culture that develops as a result of the particular people it serves most often. Ultimately, this is a question that is going to require our entire region to take a deep dive into the data and make earnest decisions on policy based on what we find.
Newton: The Scott County Sheriff’s office and municipal police departments already have strong relationships in place which allow for both formal and informal collaboration to address law enforcement related issues. I am very supportive of that collaboration and applaud our public safety for their continued efforts to work together to serve and protect our communities. I am supportive of a continued effort to explore additional opportunities for collaboration and partnering to enhance services and improve efficiency.
Lane: Agenda 30 will be a huge push to consolidate everything and to eliminate the Sheriff’s Position. Unfortunately, our County Board’s prior actions supported Agenda 30. The Sheriff’s position is our last line of defense with those who want to create a world agenda and infringe on Constitutional Rights. I would oppose any version of consolidation of local entities. I opposed the consolidation of Dispatch, SECC. I do, however, support the Sheriff’s Office helping (County Townships, Davenport, and Bettendorf) with backup.
Quad Cities International Airport
The Quad Cities International Airport is an asset to the entire Quad Cities region, yet only the Illinois Quad Cities' residents contribute taxes for its operation. It has been proposed that Scott County be included in the QCIA's taxing authority and subsequent representational governance.
14) Would you support/oppose including Scott County in the QCIA's taxation authority? If yes, why? If no, why not? Please be specific.
Drapeaux: Yes, as long as we had fair representation on the board of directors for Iowa side as well. The QCIA is very important for both sides of the river.
Kinzer: No, I do not support the idea of including Scott County in the taxing authority. Many years ago, a location was sought for the airport and the belief was the best choice Illinois not Iowa and specifically not Scott County. Upgrades and additions are completed with state and federal dollars.
Miller: While I am unprepared to posit a position here, I think that among the relevant variables that we must consider is the degree to which QCIA contributes to Iowa QC tourism, the degree of control that the airport should cede to the Scott County, and what the relative proposed tax burden of the Iowa QC would be under such an arrangement.
Newton: The Quad City Airport is an important part of our regional economy. We should look for ways to collaborate and support it on a regional level. We need to have a broader discussion with both the private and public sector about addressing future funding of regional amenities and services. It’s important for Scott County to be a part of that discussion and take an active role in ensuring we are working together as a region so that together we win.
Lane: I would oppose this.