• Veteran Affairs Director Leo Baier and Johnson County Veteran Affairs Commission: Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Update

• Johnson County Sheriff’s Major Keith Slaughter: Resolution Increasing the Daily Inmate Housing Fee and the Charge Assessed to Prisoners Participating in the County Work Release Program Or the Electronic Monitoring Program

• Johnson County Courthouse Security Committee: Final Report

• League of Women Voters Representatives Carol Spaziani and Lolly Eggers: Presentation of Regional Government Study to the Board of Supervisors

• Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Elaine Sweet: Case Manager Job Description

• County Engineer Mike Gardner: 28E Agreement with the City of Solon for Maintenance of Shared Roadways

• Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne: Monthly Report for December, 2003

• Discussion: Board's Interest to Re-Consider John Oakes’ Subdivision on Rapid Creek Road

• Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne: Reservoir Roads Trust and Possible Use on Secondary Roads Projects; and Sending a Letter to Local Cities Regarding Funding of Tax Credits for Fiscal Year 2005

• Discussion: Management Options for Johnson County Poor Farm Historical Site, Including But Not Limited to Creating Sub-Committee Or Setting Work Sessions

• Discussion: Communications Committee-Strategic Plan and Goals

• Inquiries and Reports from the Board of Supervisors

Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:30 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Veteran Affairs Director Leo Baier said that they would like the Board of Supervisors to approve new income eligibility guidelines for veterans to be in compliance with DHS, which is 100% of poverty. Baier asked that this be effective July 1, 2004. He explained that Veteran Affairs eligibility guidelines have not been updated since September of 1999. He said that since 52% of the total FY 03 budget was used for providing rental assistance, they feel the need for the modest increase for the FY 05 budget year. Baier said that Johnson County continues to experience growth, therefore jobs are readily available which means that veterans are able to seek employment. Baier said they are not requesting an increase in the amount of dollars for rental assistance because they feel the amounts are reasonable. Baier said that they are asking for a small increase in burial assistance because the aging veteran population dictates it. Baier said they are also asking for small increases in food and utility assistance provided.

Neuzil said that he isn’t in any position to increase anything due to budget constraints with the County and the State. Stutsman clarified that Baier is asking to increase his guidelines so that it can be included in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget. Stutsman said that Baier would like it if his guidelines were indexed and followed the Department of Human Services so that his guidelines would increase when theirs did. Baier agreed. Stutsman asked if General Assistance’s guidelines are indexed. Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne said that the Board sets the General Assistance guidelines because it is a County program. Stutsman said that she doesn’t have a problem with increasing the guidelines to follow the DHS guidelines but she isn’t comfortable with indexing it. She said that any increases in guidelines need to come before the Board so that they know there is the money to fund it. Baier said that veterans should have 100% of poverty. Stutsman asked what kind of impact this will have on the Veteran Affairs budget. Baier said that if these guidelines were in effect in Fiscal Year 03 only one extra veteran would have been eligible.

Johnson County Sheriff’s Major Keith Slaughter said they would like to see an increase in the daily inmate housing fee and the charge assessed to prisoners participating in the County Work Release Program and the Electronic Monitoring Program. Slaughter said that there are times that they are forced to house prisoners and they would like to be able to charge back the same rate that they’re paying out. Slaughter said that an example is that if Johnson County houses a Woodbury County prisoner on a warrant for a couple of days, Johnson County will charge Woodbury County $48 a day, but Johnson County pays Linn County $60 a day to house prisoners. Slaughter said that they want the amounts to be the same so that Johnson County isn’t losing money. Slaughter said that Johnson County does not have a booking fee. Stutsman asked how much impact this will have on the budget. Slaughter said that it doesn’t happen that often. He said that the $48 amount was set years ago and it is time to update it. Stutsman asked how they came up with the $60. Slaughter said that is what Linn County charges Johnson County.

Thompson said that recent practice has been to tie fees to actual costs. She asked what the actual cost is to house a prisoner in the Johnson County Jail. Slaughter said he doesn’t know. Harney said that the Jail is also proposing raising the electronic monitoring fee from $12 to $14. Slaughter said they have charged $14 for some time but the paperwork wasn’t done. Neuzil said that he wouldn’t have a problem with it being even higher. Slaughter said that this isn’t going to be a big moneymaker but it needs to reflect what they are paying and taking in. Stutsman agreed with Thompson and said she would like to know what it costs to house an inmate in the Johnson County Jail to make sure that the fees reflect the costs. Neuzil said that they need to keep in mind that if Johnson County starts charging more, Linn County might do the same. The Board agreed to have Horne figure out the cost to house an inmate in the Johnson County Jail. The Board decided to put the resolution increasing fees on the January 29, 2004 Formal agenda for approval.

Sixth Judicial District Court Judge Douglas Russell said that the Courthouse Security Committee has been meeting since August of 2003 with 2 goals: to present a Johnson County Courthouse Security Plan to the Board of Supervisors and to the Chief Judge; and to prepare a final report of the Committee to make recommendations beyond the contents of the Security Plan. Russell said that members of the Committee included Clerk of Court Lodema Berkley, Thompson, County Attorney J. Patrick White, Public Defender Richard Klausner, Johnson County Bar Association Past President Lois Cox, District Associate Judge Stephen Gerard, District Court Administrator Carroll Edmondson, Facilities Manager David Kempf, Trial Court Supervisor Barbara Bigelow, Judicial Assistant Leroy Nida, Slaughter, Iowa City Police Department Chief R.J. Winkelhake, Pat Jensen, Robert Sierk, Court Magistrate Mary Wiedeman, and Juvenile Court Supervisor Brandon Beaudry. Russell said that they have completed a Security Plan and Report for the Board’s consideration.

Russell said the Courthouse Security Committee addressed the issue of courthouse violence. He said there is a serious and growing problem. Russell said that it is the duty of County government to provide, staff, and secure the Courthouse for its users. Russell explained the variety of cases that can be recipes for trouble. He said that in domestic abuse cases the victim and the perpetrator of alleged domestic abuse appear in court at the same time, and in some cases there are temporary firearms warnings concerning the alleged perpetrator. Juvenile court meets at the Courthouse, Russell said, where they deal with basic family issues such as termination of parental rights and removal of children from the home. He said these are issues that people feel strongly about and emotions run high. Russell said they hear hundreds of dissolution of marriage cases every year, some of which include domestic violence, all of which include serious heartfelt issues for the parties such as child custody and division of marital assets. Russell said there are hundreds of criminal cases on every level heard at the Courthouse where people have either been charged with crimes, have pled guilty to crimes, or are present to be sentenced for crimes, many of which are violent matters. Russell said there are other civil cases that lead to serious disagreements and ill feelings such as land disputes, debt collections, and mortgage foreclosures. Russell reminded the Board of the shootings in the Hills and Lone Tree communities a few years ago, which were the product of a series of civil lawsuits concerning debts and property rights. Russell said there is the magistrate’s court where people are dealing with traffic tickets and assaults, and small claims court where people are being evicted from their homes. Russell said there are also appeals of civil commitment cases for people who have been adjudicated seriously mentally impaired and appeals of substance abuse commitments where people have been adjudicated as having serious substance abuse problems. He said that in both of these categories people have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others.

Russell said that to face these kinds of problems in the Courthouse they have judges and clerks on duty but no security personnel. He said that in the last 2 years they have lost all of their court attendants or bailiffs because of State budget cuts. He said there are no traffic directors in the courtroom except for court administration security persons who are doing all of the scheduling and answering all of the phones and at the same time trying to direct dozens of people to the right courtroom. He said no one guards the entrance to the courtrooms or the judge’s chambers. Russell said there are no police officers on regular duty. At present, Russell explained, they rely for protection and quick response on police officers, County deputies, and state troopers who may be present in the building for a case. He said they may be there for traffic court, to testify in a deposition, or as a witness in a trial.

Russell said that the experience in Jones and Linn Counties where an armed deputy in uniform is on duty at the Courthouse has a remarkably good effect in calming emotions and deterring people. He said they’ve had a number of examples at the Johnson County Courthouse where there will be a disruption and a police officer or deputy will diffuse the situation, but it is dependant on who might be there that day and available. Russell said the only other security procedures they have is that they lock the building at night, they have a panic button in each courtroom which communicates to the Sheriffs department that there is an emergency, and there is bulletproofing placed under the judges benches. Russell said that his colleagues in the 6th Judicial district feel that the main problem regarding security at the Johnson County Courthouse is that there is no security at the Courthouse. Russell said that the Courthouse Security Committee has sought to address the problem which they view as a tragedy waiting to happen. He said that violence might not even be caused by a case; random violence does occur and they must be prepared.

Russell said that they’ve presented the proposed Security Plan which has been talked through the Committee and Facilities Department to try to create a routine for the emergencies that may occur, to improve lighting, and to improve control of keys and security to the building. Russell said that their short-term recommendations that demand the immediate attention of the Board are contained in the recommendations of the report. Russell said that they will be requesting the assignment of a deputy to serve as a court security person to serve fulltime at the Johnson County Courthouse when the building is open. Russell said that it will require hiring 2 fulltime deputies so that one will always be available. He said that the Sheriff’s Department has the responsibility for the budget request and will address the costs that may be involved. Russell said that his understanding of the Sheriff’s Department needs is that they cannot remove someone from their duty at the Jail and cannot remove someone from their patrol duties except in an emergency and the response time depends on their other duties.

Russell said that there is a walkthrough metal detector available at the Sheriffs department which is not installed at the Courthouse. He said that his understanding from Slaughter is that on a particular occasion it could be available and used, but they would like to have it available on a more regular basis. Russell said they would also like funding for an electric key guard system for the Courthouse so that all of the exterior doors are controlled by keys of which there is a limited distribution. He said that in the future they would like to have additional locks in the building so that a person cannot walk into a judges chambers or into a private office of the clerk or the magistrate without being led there from court personnel or having the key that would give them access. Russell said Linn County is doing it that way now and it is very effective in keeping the public in the public areas. Russell said they are asking that steps be taken immediately so that the first floor windows of the Courthouse, particularly Courtroom 1A and the attached judges chambers, have protective coating so that people inside cannot be viewed from the outside.

Russell said that their report also contains a long-range plan that requires that a security check point be placed in the building complete with metal detectors and X-ray machines. Russell said that they understand that the Johnson County Courthouse is not configured to accept that facility at the present time but it is something to look at in the long-term. He suggested that the Courthouse might need to be replaced or have an additional building connected. He said that the real need is to have deputies on duty and to have a security checkpoint to prevent weapons from entering the building. The question of funding and scheduling, Russell said, is a political issue for the Board to consider and for the Committee to help them address. Russell said that they have thoroughly addressed the issues, looked at the needs, looked at the shortcomings, and reviewed the past on the issue. Russell said that in 1997 Judge Honsel forwarded recommendations for Courthouse security that were not acted upon. He said the previous Courthouse Security Report of 1999 was not acted upon. Russell said that Judge Remley’s letter to the Board from 2002 also requested security personnel and has not been acted upon. Russell said that it is the Committee’s duty to review the issue and make recommendations to the Board, which is the report that they’ve presented. Russell thanked the Board for their time.

Lehman said that problems are not only likely to occur during court appearances. He said that when someone comes in to pay a fine they might be upset. Lehman said that the Sheriff’s Office gets requests now during high profile trials. He asked Slaughter what they are able to do now. Slaughter said that on a case by case basis they provide security for trials. He said they usually know in advance when those trials are going to be and are able to make arrangements.

Stutsman said that when the Board approves a budget for an elected official a bottom line is approved and the elected official has discretion to do whatever they want. She asked if there is an agreement with the Sheriff’s Department that if the Board approves 2 additional deputies they will be placed at the Courthouse and not taken away from that duty. Slaughter said that if the Board does approve 2 deputies, he would like to see the Courthouse Security as a separate division, similar to the Jail Division and Patrol. White said that Slaughter is a member of the Committee and he has spoken with County Sheriff Bob Carpenter, and they have given their word but are concerned that existing funding not be taken away. White said that the understanding is that if the Board accepts the Committee’s recommendation and funds the positions they will deliver them to the Courthouse for security. White said that he too was going to suggest a separate series of line items so that it could be tracked within the Sheriff’s budget. White said that the Sheriff in making a budget recommendation didn’t request these positions because he deferred to the Committee. White said the logistics, if the Committee succeeds in persuading the Board, is for the Board to direct Horne to create a security division. Horne would then work with Slaughter and Carpenter to cost that out in terms of personnel, uniforms, and equipment to determine what the amount would be on a fiscal year basis. White said that they don’t have it in writing and there isn’t a guarantee but Slaughter and Carpenter have been straightforward in saying that if the Committee persuades the Board, they will do that. Horne said that in a strict accounting sense it would be classified as a new accounting area. Horne said that this was not included in the Sheriff’s budget request and he has a draft budget finished for the Board. Horne said the draft budget is at a flat level under the $3.50 General Fund cap and he had to make some serious reductions to get it there.

Neuzil said that he likes the Courthouse Security Plan because it mentions preventive programs and is proactive. He said that the Board understands that the major objective is to make sure that unauthorized weapons don’t enter the Courthouse. Neuzil said that all of government is getting more dangerous, which makes it difficult to say that those at the Courthouse are more in danger than others. Neuzil said that 3-5 years is what the Courthouse Security Committee has laid out for its short-term goals. He guessed that they will cost at least $200,000 per year. Kempf said that he does have money in his current budget to initially start the key card access system for the front and back doors of the Courthouse and has included money in his budget for next year that will allow them to expand the system. Kempf said that he has money earmarked for the window filming as well. Neuzil asked if the Committee looked at other potential kinds of security from other police entities, other communities, or other businesses. Russell said that they did discuss private security agencies, and the jurisdictional responsibilities of the City police as opposed to the Sheriff’s Department. Russell said that it was their belief that the Sheriff’s Department has the responsibility for security in the Courthouse and it would be unwise to farm that out. Russell said that in the event that a security entrance is put in place there could be contract employees to operate machinery as is done at airports.

Harney complimented the Committee on their well-written report. Harney expressed concern on whether or not 2 deputies are sufficient. He said that there is no way that 2 deputies can cover the Courthouse with days off and sick time. He said that it would be nice to have them there but the effectiveness would be minimal. Harney said that darkening the windows is great for the individuals inside, but if there is a problem inside law enforcement won’t be able to see in. He said that it is an old courthouse and trying to set security so there is minimal risk will be tough.

Neuzil said that if the ultimate goal is to keep dangerous weapons from entering the Courthouse they could put a system in where they make sure that people who are entering don’t have dangerous weapons. He asked if the ultimate goal is to stop dangerous weapons, to have presence, or to make sure that someone has a gun on them for a situation that needs to be stopped. Russell said that the issues aren’t separable. He said that it is important to keep unauthorized weapons out of the building and if there are weapons in the building they should be in the hands of law enforcement because they may be necessary to diffuse the situation. Russell said the Committee’s top priority is the presence in the building of deputy on duty when the Courthouse is open. He explained that it would have a very important deterrent value, it would reduce the response time to possible emergencies, and would be beneficial. Russell said that the metal detector system is important but would come as a secondary priority. Russell said that the Sheriff has agreed to add the personnel costs to his budget if the Board looks favorably upon the Committee’s request. Harney said that the Board directed the Budget Coordinator to look at security for the Courthouse as a separate package then, if approved, it would be added to the appropriate budgetary area.

Neuzil asked what other counties are doing. He said that Cedar Rapids is getting Federal dollars for their courthouse security. Russell said that Linn County has restricted access to the courthouse. District Court Administrator Carroll Edmondson said that Linn County gets most of their funding for court security from the County General Fund. He said that there is a provision in the statute that allows a certain portion of jail fees to go towards court security. Neuzil said that he is speaking of Senator Grassley’s announcement earlier this year that spoke of Homeland Security Funds that would be used for courthouse security in the Linn County facility. Edmondson said that he isn’t sure that they received any of that. He said that when the Linn County Courthouse Security Committee was first initiated, it was mainly County funded. Edmondson said that Polk County also has a security system similar to Linn County and Black Hawk County and Dubuque County are starting to do something. Edmondson said that originally Linn County had 6 deputies and now have 5. He said that at any one time there are generally 4 people on duty at the Courthouse plus there is a 5th supervisor who is also the supervisor of transport. He said there are generally 3 people at the front door and one at the side door. Russell said that Linn County has the metal detectors, security checkpoints, and deputies on duty. He said that the only other county in the district that has a deputy on duty is Jones County, which provides a deputy when court is in session there. He said that unless there is a trial there is only one court service day a week in Jones County and they do have the advantage that the Jail is part of the Courthouse. Russell said that the other 4 counties in the district have no security.

Neuzil asked if there is training for the deputies. Slaughter said that there will be specialized training, which is why he would like to see it as a separate division. He said that 2 deputies is a starting place but they are not going to keep weapons out of the Courthouse with 2 deputies. He said that they will need a full security system. Stutsman asked how many documented incidents there have been of weapons in the Courthouse. Russell said that in Linn County since they put their security procedure in place they have had scores of knives and controlled substances collected. Berkley said that weapons are another issue because what is a weapon can be different things to different people. She said they aren’t going to be able to keep out weapons. She said the issue is safety of the public and not just court personnel.

Neuzil asked if a deputy will be able to stop a situation. White said sometimes. Stutsman said that more than anything it would be a deterrent. White said the single most effective deterrent to crime is a uniformed officer and the same concept with apply to a uniformed officer at the Johnson County Courthouse. He said that the reason for the recommendation in the Courthouse as opposed to other places is that statistically Courthouses have been more often than any other identifiable place, places of violence, some of which is preventable. White said that occasionally he serves as a special prosecutor. He said that within the last several years he has been to Muscatine County, which has had for years an armed uniformed deputy. He said that Scott County has multiple armed uniformed deputies. He said that Cedar County even has uniformed security and has for several years. White said that the County has discussed this issue for at least 7 years and nothing has been done. He said that the Committee recognizes fully that the recommendation for 2 uniformed officers is not likely to put somebody in the building from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. because there is going to be illness and unexpected absences. He said that their feeling is that if they continue to wait and hypothesize what the perfect system is they are never going to do anything. He said the Committee’s recommendation is that it is past time that they get started. He said that the judges and Committee members are unanimous that if one thing can be done incrementally, the presence of uniformed officers is the most important thing that can be done.

Harney said that some judges don’t want officers with guns in their courtrooms. He asked what kind of issue that is for the officers. Russell said that the question about whether an officer will be allowed in a courtroom with a firearm is a question that can be answered by the individual presiding judge. He said that almost all judges in the district allow officers to appear with their firearms when they appear as witnesses and for regular purposes. Russell said that the few judges that do not permit that would not bar the use of firearms in an emergency. He said that most times when an officer is in the Courthouse they are armed, and the few cases when they are not allowed to wear their sidearm into the courtroom there are gun safes available or they can be left in the squad car.

Lehman said the Board’s biggest stumbling block is funding. Harney said that last year a bill was before the Legislature requesting that they tack $10 onto traffic violation fines which could in turn be distributed by the State to the counties for courthouse security. Harney said that the bill died. Harney said that he has worked with State Senator Joe Bolkcom to put a bill together. He said that rather than trying to make it statewide they are trying to allow each County to add an amount on to their traffic fines for their county, and the Clerk of Court would distribute it back to the County that the citation was issued in. Neuzil asked if the State will provide any additional money. Berkley said that they can’t even get wage increases and are looking at furloughs. Neuzil said that this is a money issue. Stutsman asked if Kempf is planning on figuring out a dollar amount for all of the suggestions. Kempf said that he hasn’t done that yet because he doesn’t know if the Board wants price tags put on the short term or long-term suggestions. Stutsman said she would like both. Kempf said that if they are going to address the X-ray machine and securing the entrances of the building they need to look at how they want to do that because there isn’t space in the Courthouse to house that type of equipment. Kempf said that they could get Neumann Monson Architect Dwight Dobberstein involved with coming up with a plan. He said that he can come up with costs for the equipment. Kempf said the initial startup on the key card system will be around $7-8,000 for the hardware and software. He said that installing the first set of doors will be more expensive to make sure that it looks good because of the problem of maintaining the historical integrity of the building. Kempf said that talking with a local firm, there will be an ending cost of probably $20,000. Kempf said that filming the windows is inexpensive but does raise the concerns that Harney brought up earlier. Kempf said that the reflective film doesn’t work when it’s dark outside, so that wouldn’t be a wise use of money. He said that if they want to block the windows there needs to be a semitransparent film that restricts all views.

Harney asked who would decide where the officer on duty at the Courthouse would be stationed. Russell said that at present a particular judge can request a deputy for a particular purpose. He said that the assignments would be up to the Sheriff’s department wisdom and experience on how best to place them.

Stutsman said that Johnson County is one of the few counties that has not passed a Courthouse Security Plan. She asked if the Committee needs action on the Security Plan also. Russell said that they are requesting that the Board approve the present Security Plan, which is the practical measures that are mostly in place already but have never been committed to a single document and approved by the Board. He said that the report of the Committee expands upon that and they are seeking approval for that as well. He hoped that they will be placed on the formal agenda for both matters. Harney asked if by approving the Plan the Board is saying that they will do every item listed. White said no because it doesn’t deal with financial implementation. White said he isn’t sure there isn’t anything in the Plan that they’re not already attempting to do. White explained that the plan formalizes and refines the current system. The Board agreed to put the Johnson County Courthouse Security Plan on the January 29, 2004 formal agenda. They also agreed to take the other requests under consideration during the budget process. Russell thanked the Board for their time and the members of the Committee for all of the time they put into the work. The Board thanked the Committee for their work.

Recessed at 10:45 a.m.; reconvened at 10:55 a.m.

League of Women Voters (LOWV) Representative Carol Spaziani thanked the Board for giving the LOWV Regional Government Committee time to bring the Board up to date in the League’s research on regional government for Johnson County. Spaziani said that the League has asked for the Board’s time to discuss what they have learned since 2001 when they began their study. She said it is their hope that this information and other current development wills provide the groundwork and motivation for some of the Board as local government leaders, to begin to investigate structural solutions to improve intergovernmental cooperation and coordination in Johnson County.

Spaziani said that the Board should have received a packet of materials containing summaries of the League’s work. She said the packet was a product of a year of research on city-county mergers across the country and the climate for this in Iowa. She said that based on their work their members adopted the following positions: the current mechanisms in Johnson County to aid the cooperation and coordination of intergovernmental and regional issues are neither adequate nor adequately utilized; and the League should stimulate serious community dialog on structural solutions to intergovernmental problems.

Spaziani said that next they developed 2 possible models for merging local governments and decided to sample community opinion on the status of intergovernmental cooperation as well as the degree of support for merger. Spaziani said that the League conducted interviews with 25 community leaders from government, business and political parties. The following is a summary of opinions expressed in the interviews:

1. Cooperation between local governments in the county currently exists, but there is room for a great deal of improvement.

2. Johnson County Council of Governments could achieve greater effectiveness through addressing more intergovernmental issues and redesigning the makeup of the council.

3. There is support for incremental change through delivering regional services, one at a time, to the entire area. (The 8 most frequently mentioned services for merging were: transit, fire protection, land use planning and regulation, property tax equalization/revenue sharing, police/law enforcement, libraries, water emergency dispatch.)

4. There is no strong interest in changing the structure of governments within Johnson County to form a regional or metropolitan government.

5. Any changes toward regionalization will require education of the public.

Spaziani said that they then conducted a formal mail survey of those interviewed to try to identify the top 3 services each would suggest for a merger. About one third responded and suggested as the top 5: transit, libraries, public safety, emergency dispatch, and building codes and inspections. Spaziani said that in order to improve their knowledge in what would be involved in merging any of these services, they conducted research with pertinent elected officials in charge of each service. She said that their goal was to select one or 2 services which might have the best chance for success as a countywide system. After study, they chose emergency dispatch and fire protection. She said that in their view these services have the most immediate and critical impact on the most people and they both also have well-developed system of cooperation.

Lolly Eggers said that there are 12 fire protection districts in Johnson County to serve 111,006 people. She said that only 2 have professional paid staff. Rural residents are served by 22 township contracts with the nearest small town volunteer department. She said that there is a disparity in response times for urban and rural residents. The population and subdivision growth in the rural areas create a need for a higher level of service while annexations add to the workloads for city fire departments. Eggers said that a cooperative and supportive climate exists for developing a higher level of coordination. She said that the 12 districts have developed a 28E agreement for mutual aid as well as a mutual aid association which meets monthly for training and communication. It has also developed a combination career/hazardous materials response time, joint training programs and a separate Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Association. She said that it has a task force working on implementation of the goals in a Department of Economic Development funded study. Of the goals outlined in the study, the Mutual Aid Association has chosen "working together" as their first priority. Eggers said that the following benefits would accrue to the community if there were one countywide fire protection service: reduced administrative costs; increased access to resources and special equipment; coordinated training of personnel; better utilization of professionals and volunteers in an integrated team approach; and improved insurance rates for commercial enterprises throughout the county. Eggers said that a consultant report outlining steps to following the process of regionalization is available and all that is needed to get started is the political will and leadership.

Eggers said that regarding emergency dispatch there are 2 Primary Service Answering Points (PSAPs) in Johnson County-the Johnson County Sheriff and the Iowa City Police Department, and one secondary-the University of Iowa. She explained that there are 2 911 areas-Iowa City and the rest of the County. The University of Iowa is served by both 911 areas. All cell phone 911 calls go to the Sheriff. Eggers outlined problems with the system as it is now conformed:

1. Iowa City and Johnson County use different frequencies to dispatch their units. In a countywide emergency, Iowa City could not dispatch Johnson County units and vice versa.

2. Sheriff’s cars and Iowa City Police cars cannot communicate directly with one another.

3. Iowa City dispatchers provide emergency medical help over the phone while units are traveling to the site: Johnson County dispatchers are not trained for this. Only Johnson County can dispatch an ambulance.

4. There is not uniform access to criminal records. Iowa City can access the world’s records through Interpol but do not have access to Johnson County’s records.

The 2 dispatch services have developed a degree of cooperation:

1. A designated phone line connects the 2 PSAPs.

2. Iowa City Fire, Police, and the Johnson County Ambulance Service have an 800 megahertz frequency to talk directly to each other.

3. A countywide 911 board with representatives of all political service units in the County coordinates the 911 system using funds from telephone ratepayers.

Eggers said that the following benefits would accrue to the community from a merged countywide system:

1. A standard communication network and protocol could better interface with systems outside the County.

2. Elimination of duplicated governmental services.

3. Economies for the community through sharing of costs or better quality services at the same cost.

4. Efficiencies gained through information sharing and technically compatible record keeping systems.

5. Emergency Medical Dispatch services by telephone could become available to the whole county instead of just within Iowa City. It has been shown that this service often prevents more expensive dispatching of mobile units.

6. Standardized training and compensation could be developed for dispatch personnel.

Eggers said that the climate for service consolidation is ripe. She said there is editorial support from both the Iowa City Press-Citizen and the Gazette. There is support from the Iowa City Fire Department and the Iowa City City Manager. Eggers said that legislative leaders are now considering a suggestion from the Public Strategies Group for "Freedom Communities" which, if enacted, would offer incentives to areas merging at least 50% of their services. Eggers said that the financial picture at the State level is so tight that political leaders may no longer be willing to subsidize the bill for duplicated local services. Eggers said that the League has no illusion that establishing merged countywide fire protection and emergency dispatch services will be easy. But, she said, the benefits to residents in this rapidly-growing county would be great. She said that politics and turf battles cannot be allowed to stand in the way. Eggers said that a successful merger of these 2 services could show the way to other cooperative measures. Spaziani said that the League urged the Board to see that these discussions result in concrete intergovernmental action with a defined timeline. She said that in order to give the incremental approach recommended by community leaders time to work, the League has suspended their interest in a consolidation charter commission. She said that they will continue to monitor meetings of JCCOG in expectation that merger of these 2 services will be furthered in that arena.

Harney said that it is a good report. He said that the League is saying that there is little cooperation between the County and City entities. He said that there is a lot of communication happening and dollars being saved on joint projects. Harney said that Sand Road and 12th Avenue construction projects are examples. He said that there is a lot going on that isn’t obvious to a lot of individuals. Spaziani said that there is some but it could be a lot better. Stutsman asked if there are any other entities that have combined their fire service where there have been a lot of volunteers. Spaziani said that they haven’t done a lot of research on that. Stutsman said it is a well written report and she appreciates the grass roots efforts of the League to bring these items to the table. Stutsman said she is positive that they can move forward on this. She said that they all as political individuals realize that there is a lot that can be done to coordinate but it will take a lot of political will and effort. Spaziani said that it isn’t easy but the groundswell of support throughout the State is there. Stutsman said there are Innovation Awards available now to counties that come up with innovative ideas. Horne said that the County is applying for an Innovation Grant for the Medical Examiner program.

Spaziani said that they have appointments to present the report to North Liberty, Coralville, and Solon, and hope to present their report to the City of Iowa City in March. Neuzil suggested that if the League is talking about Townships, they might want to communicate with them also. Spaziani asked if the Townships have regular meetings. Horne said that they are required to have a budget meeting. Spaziani said that one thing that they thought the Board might say is that the Sheriff runs the dispatch system and is an independently elected office. She said that at the same time there are several points of control that the Board exercises, such as funding and managing Civil Defense, the Ambulance Service, and Fire Protection for the rural areas through the Townships. Spaziani said that the Board gives $250,000 out of the $500,000 budget of the 22 townships. She said that the Board also has budgetary control of the Sheriff’s department. Spaziani said that those 5 things give the Board some responsibility in fire protection and emergency dispatch. Harney said that they do provide funding to a lot of those areas. Harney said that Emergency Management is operated by a committee that is appointed rather than through the Board of Supervisors, who can’t tell them what to do or how to do it, similar to the Assessors. Stutsman said that the Trustees have their own budgets. Neuzil said that they are their own elected officials. Spaziani said that it is still a tax levy that people are paying. Horne said that the County is required to pay them for their meetings and some IPERS. Spaziani said that there are 22 townships for 111,000 people. Eggers said that the League chose the 2 services because they are essential to security in the County and they assumed that a lot of the people on the street don’t know about the holes in the system, like the fact that one arm of law enforcement cannot easily talk to the other.

Thompson said that the League has been smart in picking the 2 areas that it did because while it is not widely known that there are problems although there is some public understanding of it. Thompson said that everybody who lives outside of the city pays higher fire insurance rates. She said that anecdotally a lot of people understand the problems with the dispatch area. She said that the Ambulance Department mentions this as a problem they have to address frequently. Spaziani said that they hope that the Board will bring up these issues and broaden the scope of JCCOG. Lehman said there are other forums also, such as the Joint Meeting with Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, and the Iowa City Community School District, and the Joint Meeting with Small Towns. Spaziani said that the joint meetings with cities are good for discussing issues but they don’t have a lot of power.

Neuzil said there is a lot of cooperation going on but there could be more. He said that when more is done and efficiencies are found it will mean less employees. Spaziani disagreed. Neuzil said that when they talk about all of these things it causes difficult choices to be made. He said that they have to understand that when there are new technologies, if there is going to be one dispatch center and there are 2 or 3 currently, less people will be necessary. Spaziani said that part of the study is figuring that out. Spaziani said that is why the community leaders that they interviewed steered away from merging governments because they didn’t want to put themselves out of jobs. Spaziani said that when they talk about merging a service, that service still has to be provided to the same number of people in the same geographic area as before. She said there might be economies in administrative salaries but there might not be less employees. Lehman said that it is perceived notion. He said that on paper Iowa has a lot of elected officials because of township trustees, but it is the purest form of government. Lehman said that the County only spends $2,500 a year on the Township Trustees. Spaziani said that there may be some grass roots units that could be streamlined, like 22 townships for 110,000 people. Neuzil said that he looks at that as a good thing. He said that he likes the idea of townships and he likes the idea that people can go to their neighbors and use the township trustee process. He said that it isn’t a bad thing, it is the purest form of government. He said the reason that local government is the most powerful is that it is closest to the people. Stutsman said that what they have to recognize is that all of these things are good things but the bottom line is what can be afforded anymore. Spaziani said that they may like it but the functions that they perform for the public have to be looked at. Neuzil said that his point is that a more efficient way means less people. Neuzil asked if Spaziani just said that she wanted less townships. Spaziani said that she possibly wants less trustees. The Board thanked the League for their presentation.

Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Elaine Sweet said that she is bringing the Case Manager job description to the Board of Supervisors on recommendation from the Targeted Case Manager (TCM) Advisory Board. Sweet said that the Case Manager job description is an umbrella job description. She said that MH/DD performs the TCM function, County funded case management, and central point of coordination. Sweet said that the umbrella Case Manager job description addresses the TCM function and the County funded case management. Sweet said that prior to July 1, 2003, MH/DD was part of a 28E agreement with the Department of Human Services. She said that the position was hired under the Iowa Department of Human Services personnel policies and was covered under that 28E agreement. She said that as of July 1, 2003 MH/DD was carved out of the 28E Agreement, which necessitated development and Board approval of the Johnson County job description.

Sweet said that the definitions and duties in the job description go into specifics. Sweet said that the position coordinates and monitors services in compliance with Administrative Rules, the Services Management Plan, and other applicable policies and procedures. She said the knowledge section addresses Chapter 24, 25, and 90 of the Administrative Rules, which cover the case management process and the central point of coordination. She explained that case managers request funding under the Services Management Plan. Sweet said that Human Resources was involved in the development of the job description and they have approved forwarding it to the Board of Supervisors. Sweet said that the Iowa State Association of Counties County Case Management has also approved the job description. Sweet said that the job description will be forwarded to the union through Human Resources. The Board decided to put the job description on a future formal meeting agenda after it receives union approval.

County Engineer Mike Gardner said that they are trying to revisit maintenance agreements with all of the small towns and adjoining counties. He presented the Board with a proposed 28E Agreement with the City of Solon for maintenance of shared roadways. Gardner said that Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell has reviewed the agreement and the Solon City Council has approved it. The Board agreed to put the agreement on a future formal agenda for approval.

Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne said that December marks the halfway point of Fiscal Year 2004 and expenses and revenues should be at 50%. He said that the loss in interest revenue is being offset in the General Fund by the Recorder’s revenue. The following is a summary of departments that have items of note:

Ambulance (Department #01) - Ambulance Director Steve Spenler has informed Horne that the replacement ambulance will be delivered during the last week of January. Revenues for the department went up substantially in December and are 10% or $92,296 over budget year to date. The department received large Blue Cross payments.

Sheriff (Department #08) - Through December, $156,420 has been spent on out-of-county prisoner housing. This is on course for an annual total of $312,840, which would be $87,000 below budget.

Medical Examiner (Department #10) - The Medical Examiners Office is running 14% or $24,556 over budget currently on expenditures, however, revenues continue to come at 139% or $14,861 above budget. The Department will likely require an amendment before the end of the fiscal year. Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan will be taking over the administration from Account Clerk II Kathy Kasson in the Auditor’s Office. This will more in depth billing in terms of billing cost allocations back to other counties.

Recorder (Department #11) - The revenues from the County Recorder have helped offset the loss in interest and other revenues. Currently the department has collected 110% (or $773,429) of its total revenue budget.

Central Services (Department #18) – There are a group of items in this budget that require some monitoring. Among the items are gasoline, minutes in the Press-Citizen, central postage and labor relations. An amendment will also be needed to cover the costs of the Flexible Benefit Plan Administration. Many of these inflationary costs will be reflected in the FY 2005 budget.

Institutional Accounts (Department #41) – Use of the Toledo Youth Home has driven the institutional accounts to use 83% of the budget already. There has also been sporadic use of the civil commitment accounts. Department of Human Services Area Administrator Cheryl Whitney is helping to ascertain how much use there will be in the near future so that an accurate adjustment for this year and budget for Fiscal Year 2005 can be made.

Horne said that budgeting for tax credits and replacements continues to be a major problem in the uncertain environment caused by State budget woes. If the County loses 50% of credits and replacements in the General Fund it would come out to $426,963 in lost revenue. Horne met with Tony Roetlin of Springsted Inc., on January 9, 2004 to discuss use of debt service for Fiscal Year 2005 and other issues including the relationship of the credits problem to use of the debt service levy. Horne said that the County is applying for a Local Government Innovation Grant from the State for the Medical Examiner program, which, if awarded, could be up to $100,000. He said they will discuss the County’s partnership with the University as well as possible expansion to a regional program. During budget meetings, Horne discussed contracts with agencies such as the Historical Society and Fair Board. After the current budget season is complete, he will follow up with them and get all the contracts in place by the end of summer. Per the Board’s Strategic Planning, Horne will also be approaching neighboring counties regarding the possibility of expansion of SEATS and the Medical Examiner. Horne said that given the current budget situations of counties, perhaps a bigger range of services and cost saving opportunities could be explored.

Stutsman asked if the Board is interested in reconsidering the John Oakes subdivision on Rapid Creek Road. She said that there seemed to be additional discussion needed so she put the item on the agenda to see if all of the issues have been thoroughly discussed. She said that an issue that came up after the Board’s decision was whether the Board would like to consider subdivisions that are in the Iowa City growth area. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore said that this came up during the proposed amendments to the Road Performance Standards, which staff wasn’t in favor of. He said that this time the idea put forth to planning staff is exempting proposed developments in a growth area of a city from the Road Performance Standards. He said that he doesn’t speak for Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, but he believes that staff’s opinion is that it isn’t a good idea. He said that in order to do this, the County needs to be able to exempt developments near all cities instead of just one, but many of the cities would not agree. He said that in most of the Fringe Area Agreements within the 2 mile review area the cities have, the County has identified growth areas and then the rest is treated like a rural agricultural area. He said that in the growth areas the agreement states that if someone wants to develop there before it’s annexed that they must build the subdivision per City standards. Those standards include water and sewer lines, city designed roads, and then also cap the sewer and water lines to put in individual systems until the annexation, which increases the cost of the development to encourage the annexation. He said that this is a good plan because it prevents leapfrog development, which is hard for governmental entities to service and pay for. He said that planning staff isn’t in favor of such an amendment. Moore said that when staff is administering the policies and ordinances, they don’t look at those requests based on an individual applicant, only the application. He said that they will be glad to work with Secondary Roads, JCCOG, and the Board to look at it, but staff had hoped that after the proposed amendments defeat they would keep the Standards as they are until they see if they work they way staff thinks they have.

Harney said that the only way he would consider this possibility would be for pre-zoned ground for areas like subdivisions were the development is already taking place. Stutsman said that if they allow the development then it would have to be developed to City standards, because by designating an area a growth area it means that the City will annex it fairly soon. Moore said that since there isn’t an application in front of them, they can’t determine the needs it would put on a governmental entity. He said that he’s familiar with the Oakes’ property and the infrastructure that services it. He said that if that application was under Planning review, staff would look at not only Rapid Creek Road, but the impact it would have on Highway 1 as well. He said that staff would ask the property owner to have JCCOG complete an analysis of the area. He believes that it would require improvements to that intersection that they would ask the developer to pay for. He said that it’s difficult to make assumptions here, but there’s a bigger picture staff looks at besides where the initial access occurs.

Lehman said that his concern, as Pat White says, is how arbitrary and capricious the changes are the Board is making to try to get one or 2 applications through the door. He said that it’s also unfair. Moore said that when White weighs in on land uses and ordinances, Planning and Zoning staff listens very carefully. Moore said that White has said many times to look at the application, not the applicant. Moore asked if they do this, are they going to make exceptions for all roads including gravel, dirt, and chip seal. Harney replied that if the Board goes through with the changes, this is where the prezoned ground would come in to play. Stutsman said that the Board doesn’t know if there’s prezoned ground on gravel roads. Moore replied that around Iowa City there is a considerable amount of ground on gravel roads that lies in Iowa City’s growth area. Neuzil said that when looking at a proposal like this, the Board would certainly want to make sure that the Cities would be willing to sign off on it. Moore said that the cities pay for arterial roads, but the roads that service development are paid for by developments. He said that the Cities might have a different opinion, because if they annex ground that isn’t up to City standards, then the City would assume the responsibility. He said that like Neuzil said, if this is something the Board wants to consider, they will have to have the Cities represented.

Thompson asked if due to the restrictions, it would be better for the landowner to request annexation. Moore said that the intent of allowing development in a growth area is to encourage a developer to annex first and then develop at City standards and City densities. Thompson said that she voted against the previous amendments based on staff’s comments that the Board shouldn’t incrementally alter the ordinances to satisfy individual landowners and she would be opposed to this for the same reason. Stutsman agreed, but said that she wanted to put this on the agenda because she felt like this was an issue they hadn’t thoroughly been discussed. She said that she wanted John Oakes and Sue Norris to feel comfortable that the Board has looked at that alternative. She said that her concern would be to opening this up for everyone. Neuzil said that the consensus of the Board is not to proceed.

Horne said the Finance Committee asked him to research the Reservoir Roads Trust so see when it was received, the amount received, and how it has been used. Horne explained that the Federal Government made 2 payments to the County as a settlement for damages caused by the creation of the Coralville Reservoir. One in 1981 for $628,000 and one in 1982 for $1,180,000, totaling $1,808,000. He said that the current value is approximately $2.75 million and there was no restriction placed on the use of these funds, because they were restitution for damages. Currently, the funds are in a liquid account because County Treasurer Tom Kriz wanted the Board to have flexibility in funding, but it generates a lower interest rate. He said that historically the Board has taken out $100,000 in interest for the Secondary Roads Fund, but with the low interest they will soon start taking from the principal at that amount. Horne said that the Board should either direct use of the funds for road projects or return them to a higher interest bearing vehicle.

Horne said that the present value in 2002 total dollars should be $3,436,075 but the 2003 current balance is closer to $2,750,000. He said that although they’re earning interest, it hasn’t kept pace with inflation. He said that the analysis he’s provided reflects the declining value of the Reservoir Roads Trust (Dept #81). He said that if they take the current balance away, the trust is worth $686,075 less in 2002 dollars than it was in 1982. He said that the longer the County maintains the current system, and sends interest to Secondary Roads, the less and less the principal of the trust will be worth.

Thompson said that the Board has discussed a number of uses for this money, but the project with the closest consensus is the Mehaffey Bridge project, which isn’t for several more years. She said that it would make sense to put it back in a higher interest bearing account. Stutsman said that they should also earmark the funds for use on the Mehaffey Bridge Road. Stutsman said that when the Finance Committee met it was before the Board’s discussion about Mehaffey Bridge Road. She said that her issue with this is that it bothers her to have the money sitting in a savings account. She asked why they keep taxing the taxpayers when they are sitting on money. She said that if they say that they are putting the money aside for Mehaffey Bridge Road knowing that they aren’t going to have to tax as much she is more comfortable with it. She said it isn’t a responsible use of tax dollars to save the money in case they might need it some day.

Harney said that he thought it was the consensus of the Board that they were going to use it for the Mehaffey Bridge replacement that is coming up. Harney said that he knows that some of the money has been used in the past for gravel for the roads but it does keep building. Horne said that the feeling has always been that the money was in the County reserves for projects in the area, although there was no condition placed on the money. Horne said that when someone is looking at the money, whether it be the State of Iowa or during contract negotiations, it is going to be viewed as an unrestricted fund balance. Harney said if they spend the balance down the County will have to come up with a couple of hundred thousand dollars for every year. Stutsman said she would rather tax than have the County sit on a fund balance of 2 million dollars. Horne said he would like direction from the Board. Neuzil said that there seems to be consensus from the Board that the money would be used for Mehaffey Bridge. Stutsman asked if it can be put into a capital projects account. Horne said that they don’t have a capital account for Secondary Roads. He said they can maintain it in the current fund, earmark it, and stop the transfers.

Thompson asked if there is any provision in Federal rules that would keep them from getting Federal money if they already had set aside money for the project. Gardner said that bridge replacement funds and STP funding wouldn’t be impacted by this kind of thing. Thompson said that it seems like the thing to do. Stutsman agreed. Lehman said that in the past there was a lot of discussion because a lot of people in the area had hopes that the money be used to replace Green Castle Bridge. Lehman said that the Board might want to share information about why the Board has decided not to use the money for that. Gardner said that the study was one in the early 90’s. Thompson asked if they could call the restricted fund bridge replacement. Horne said that it can be called whatever the Board wants. Lehman said that Gardner would like direction of whether they’re going to have funding for Mehaffey Bridge that is on the future projects list. Harney said that if the Board is going to do that Gardner needs to know so that he can budget 100,000 for gravel this year. Gardner agreed. He said that it wasn’t just used for rock. He said that when the reservoir goes up and then back down they have to clean debris off Amana Road and replace rock. They also have had to repair Sandy Beach Road. Gardner said that the money was used for maintenance of the roads in the area. Horne said that he will draw up a Board resolution earmarking the Reservoir Roads Trust Fund for the Mehaffey Bridge project.

Neuzil said that the next item is regarding sending an item to local cities regarding funding of tax credits for Fiscal Year 2005. Horne said that some Board members have indicated that they would like to have the cities make the decision of whether or not they want to pass along the Homestead Credit shortfall to their taxpayers. Horne said that Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler feels that the cities would have to acquiesce to that. Neuzil said that the State calls it their tax credits, and then chooses not to fund them, and ask the County to fund or not fund them. Neuzil said that as far as the breakup of the tax credits it includes the County, Cities, and School Districts. Neuzil said that the Board set a precedent last year by covering the tax credits and covering for the Cities and the School Districts. Neuzil said that the Board has received a heads up from Bolkcom that the credits might not be funded again, close to one million dollars. Neuzil asked what the options are. Horne said there are 3 tax credits: the Homestead Credit, the Elderly and Disabled Credit, and the Military Credit. He said that the last 2 years the Board has funded the Military Credit and the Elderly and Disabled Credit and passed the Homestead Credit on. Kistler said that at a past meeting there weren’t enough cities and schools present to get a consensus. Thompson said that the Board funded the credits because the County, Cities, and School Districts had already funded their budget. She said that it would be good to tell the Cities and Schools now that if it happens again the County doesn’t intend to pick up their share. Neuzil asked if the Board is able to do that.

Kistler said that the information that the County received from the State was that everyone should agree to it to pass it on to the cities and schools. Thompson said that they will say no. Neuzil said the point is that it wouldn’t be the County saying no. Thompson said that the County can say that it doesn’t intend to pay for the credits. Stutsman said that it is a good communication tool to let other communities know if the County doesn’t intend to cover the credits. Neuzil said that this issue is on the upcoming Joint Meeting agenda. Neuzil said that he doesn’t think that Johnson County has the type of budget to cover the credits year after year. The Board directed Horne to find out whether or not the Board can only cover the County’s portion of the credits.

Sullivan said that at the last Board of Supervisors meeting Historical Society Board of Directors Member Del Richards presented a draft lease agreement to the Board of Supervisors for the County Farm. Sullivan said there were a lot of changes that the Board wanted to make to the draft. Sullivan said that Chappell suggested the Board discuss whether or not to create a subcommittee or schedule work sessions to discuss the issue. Neuzil said that it makes sense to assign a couple of Supervisors to work on the issue. Thompson agreed. The Board assigned Lehman and Thompson to work on the issue. Sullivan said that the subcommittee will review options and issues and bring them to the Board. Stutsman asked that minutes of the subcommittee meeting be provided. County Attorney J. Patrick White said that he assumes that Chappell, Sullivan, Thompson, and Lehman will meet without the Historical Society first to ascertain what policy issues they want to discuss. White said they might even come back to the Board before sitting down and trying to negotiate a lease with the Historical Society. White said that they need fundamental Board decision as to is the Johnson County Historical Society the preferred agent for managing and interpreting the site. White said once they know that the Board is comfortable with that, they can explore what the options are in detail. White said that fairly early in the process they will want guidance from the Board about the length of the agreement they are discussing. White said that there are guidance issues that they will profit from if they bring them back to the full Board for guidance before getting too far down the road. Sullivan said that he will coordinate the first meeting.

Stutsman said that the Communications Committee felt that it needed structure to see how it was doing and if they are accomplishing what they set out to do. Stutsman said that the Strategic Plan was a product of that structure. She said that it has been approved by the Communications Committee. She said that they wanted to bring it to the Board to see if they are on track with what the Board views is the mission of the Communications Committee. Neuzil suggested they add the phrase "and other radio opportunities" to the item "participate in the Sunday morning government program on KCJJ". Neuzil said that the goals of the Communications Committee are to continue to improve citizen relations and get the word out about what County government is doing. Neuzil said that the County video is almost finished and they plan to display it to the public when it is completely finished. Stutsman said that they are talking about having community focus groups meet quarterly to seek input about how the County can better communicate and get information out to the general public about what County government is doing. Neuzil said that the goal "meet with editorial boards on a yearly basis" has been started. Stutsman said that she and County Recorder Kim Painter met with the Press-Citizen Editorial Board and there was a good dialogue. Stutsman said that one thing that came out of it was a venue to correct stories.

Neuzil said that the Board of Supervisors will not be having an informal or formal meeting on January 22, 2004.

Adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary