Stutsman: Discussion/action needed regarding the notice from City of Coralville regarding Beaumont Annexation proposal. This was included in our packet.

Peters: (Inaudible) to put on your agenda again, just to let you know that this proposal is before the City of Coralville. I did visit with the Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, and Rick said that they were perfectly comfortable with this. In fact, they had recommended that this action be taken regarding this small piece of property. So unless the Board wants more information, I’ll just send them a note saying thanks for the invitation, you do it. We do not have further comments.

Stutsman: It amounted to what, 9/10 of an acre, Carol?

Peters: It’s a very small amount.

Stutsman: The annexation. I guess I would agree with your summary. I would have no problem with Rick’s feeling about it too.

Peters: When they came to Rick, Rick actually is the one that suggested that they annex this small amount of property.

Stutsman: It’s a voluntary annexation with the landowners?

Lehman: Is there any purpose of us even sending some type of letter to the City Development? It’s kind of been our history in the past.

Stutsman: I think Carol, you talked about sending a letter saying acknowledging that we did review it.

Peters: No. No problems. Which would be a deviation from your…

Stutsman: That’s right.

Jordahl: 9/10 of an acreage looks like it’s considerably more land than that on the map that I see here. It says project location in the hash marks. It looks to me like that’s a few acres. Are we lacking…

Stutsman: Well, I wonder if some of that, if the project isn’t already in the city limits and maybe just the 9/10 is what is in the County.

Jordahl: So, where is that 9/10 then?

Peters: As I understood it, it was the lane.

Stutsman: It was what Carol?

Peters: A lane.

Stutsman: A lane. Oh. OK. A lane. Did you hear that?

Jordahl: It is a lane.

Stutsman: That would be about 9/10 of an acre.

Thompson: The map that we have isn’t as good as the one that Rick had in here the other day.

Jordahl: Isn’t as good as the one we’d like to have.

Thompson: Which shows it just as a little long narrow piece.

Jordahl: Well, I think the overlay probably on this is supposed to be that.

Stutsman: Oh. It’s probably…

Jordahl: Oh that. Oh, the arrow goes too far.

Stutsman: Yes.

Jordahl: This is an old project location map. That’s what that is. This whole hash marked area is obsolete.

Thompson: It appears to be a piece that maybe was left out in the description of the prior annexation or something.

Stutsman: So, are we OK with Carol drafting that letter and having a Chairperson sign it?

Jordahl: It’s a negligible amount of land. But, in terms of the documentation that we see here of it, it’s a little bit wanting. Maybe if we could get Rick to come down here.

Peters: Would you like a better map?

Jordahl: Or maybe just have Rick tell us what’s going on.

Stutsman: Quite frankly, for 9/10 of an acre, I don’t know if it’s really worth that discussion.

Jordahl: Not worried about it.

Stutsman: It seems like everybody is pretty…

Peters: Would you like me to check to see if he is in now?

Jordahl: Well, if the sense of the Board is they don’t want to listen to him, don’t want to bother him, then…

Stutsman: What’s the rest of the Board feel? I’ve spoken what I feel about it.

Lehman: I don’t have an objection to it. I just thought maybe we needed done the ones that we didn’t favorable for. We still need to keep a record of the ones as they come to us. That’s just my thoughts. Just a standard form letter like you had mentioned. We’ve redid it.

Stutsman: Carol?

Thompson: I had a chance to talk with Rick about it before and I feel comfortable with it.

Stutsman: I do, too.

Jordahl: If you had a chance to talk to Rick before, maybe you can shed light on the current situation.

Thompson: Well, it’s just a long narrow piece of land on the edge of a project.

Stutsman: This is the narrow piece of land right here, right?

Thompson: Yes.

Stutsman: A lane.

Jordahl: Is there a proposed use for this? Is it part of this subdivision somehow?

Thompson: He said and I forgot.

Peters: Yes. That’s the way with me too, Carol. The main thing that I do remember is that it’s our Planning and Zoning Office that is recommending to the City of Coralville that this be annexed into the City of Coralville.

Jordahl: Oh. They want it annexed.

Stutsman: Since it seems like you’re the only that really has questions about this maybe you could visit with Rick after the meeting and get it clarified.

Jordahl: You bet. I certainly will.

Stutsman: OK.

Thompson: The alternative would be for us to rezone it and it’s an odd shaped piece for us to rezone and it doesn’t really fit in with what is next to it. Where if it’s annexed, it will.

Stutsman: All right. So we’re OK with Carol drafting that letter. We don’t need formal action on that letter do we? OK. We’ll just circulate it and then send it on.

Peters: Right. I’ll make sure everybody sees a copy of it before it’s forwarded.

Stutsman: All right. Terrific.

Stutsman: Reports and inquiries. Jonathan, do you want to start this morning?

Jordahl: Well, it’s been a very busy week despite the County being on holiday on Monday. I and Mike, I think, were the only elected officials from the County that went up to the ECICOG Land Use.

Thompson: I went.

Stutsman: Carol went.

Jordahl: Did you go there, too?

Thompson: I got the morning.

Jordahl: Oh. You did the morning and then Mike and I were…

Stutsman: Charlie didn’t go?

Jordahl: No.

Stutsman: Oh. I thought he would have.

Jordahl: Mike and I dealt with some budget matters in the morning and then went up in the afternoon and then Sally was ill, so I filled in for her on the panel Monday night discussing economic development issues and the corridor. There was Ralph Russell, who is representative of this private group called the Corridor Committee, which is sort of made up of ICAD plus Iowa City Area Development Group, Priority One, from Cedar Rapids, and support from various communities in the area as well. They have been very successfully promoting development of the corridor along Interstate 380. Mayor Lee Clancy also is on the panel. We, in talking about the future of the corridor, it was interesting to hear the economic development and then the City of Cedar Rapids issues. Then to talk from our perspective, I think, in Johnson County of the goal of preserving some of the natural area we see along Interstate 380, while at the same time recognizing that we’ve got a lot of zoned land there. So, we’re going to see additional development in the North Corridor. We want to have some control over what forms of economic development occur. There was a request made. One gentleman from the audience had the idea of putting together a taxing body. A whole new kind of quasi-governmental entity that would be the corridor development committee or something and it would be able to actually levy taxes for its operations to promote economic development. I suggested, from my point of view and what I think adequately represents feelings of people in this area, that we’re certainly not ready to surrender our autonomy in the area of economic development. We like to be a little bit picky about what types of industries we have here. I gave the example of the bread factory. I said this is something that we are real glad to have and it would be really hard to imagine you go out and find something that good. But, there it is. It can be done. But, following along that same line, a few minutes later I responded to him saying that I didn’t mean to completely dismiss the idea of some sort of regional coordination. This conference, in bringing together mayors and councils and supervisors and people interested in economic development, it sort of pre-figured some kind of cooperation that goes just a step or so beyond what we’ve done so far in our joint meetings with Linn County, and with Cedar Rapids. This is the ECICOG organizing something that Doug Elliott said could be the first annual conference on land use. Somewhere between this notion of a separate taxing authority and just having individual meetings with the cities and counties in the sort of spirit of cooperation… There might be something in the nature of an area economic development plan, that would grow out of our county economic development plan that you were working on that we could have a product, a piece of paper evolve, that would make sure everybody is sitting at the table. So, it was really gratifying in that regard. I appreciate the opportunity to fill in there.

Stutsman: Glad I could accommodate you.

Jordahl: Sorry it had to be so painful for you. That was Tuesday, and I will defer yesterday’s discussion to you and/or others.

Stutsman: Mike, do you have anything this morning?

Lehman: Yes. Add on to what Jonathan said. I thought it was good, the examples of Dean Wheatley of the Planning with Cedar Rapids, is interesting how we have request to bring some land in. Maybe they’d bring more land in, provide services (inaudible) so that it didn’t affect the value of surrounding land as much. Just things that they had to consider. Jeff Davidson pointed out a place in Iowa City where they actually brought land in, even though it was going to be immediately sewer and water too. They’ll probably put a lift station in to have sewer, but rather than leave it out there in a landlocked type situation, they consider (inaudible) type. So, it does really come planning, where you have to foresee the problems that you might head yourself into or developers. This morning I went to the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce. It was interesting. They spoke on the task force and how it charges and it kind of reminded me of when we got into the jail situation here of how you need to make sure that you develop a task force, that they know what they are doing and accomplish what you set them out to do and how to really define that. One of those (inaudible) at the jail here was the last 2 months we’ve heard presentations on under age drinking. Whether task force, whether they want to look at this, what kind of recommendation do they want to give at all. But, the big thing is information and education to the public of the problems they have and the solutions might be out there and it affects parents, the city, university, all of that. So, it’s a pretty involved thing. Interesting what comes out of that. I also went to the County a Day. I thought that was very interesting. The first time I’d been in that type of situation, but we were fortunate enough to sit in a subcommittee that addressed the proposal on property tax limitations. I thought it was very interesting that the discussion that we heard, a lot of those people might consider what happens to their own county, but they need to consider what it is state wide on some counties that may have quite a reserve build up. They want to protect citizens from being over taxed there and our situation may be different where we don’t have a reserve to do activities that may come up. I thought it was interesting to hear the discussion. Tom Slockett and Kim Painter were there and Tom was able to give some real… They asked Tom for some advice and he was willing to give it. His experience, I think, some of those people weren’t aware of. You can pick up from there Sally.

Stutsman: Oh. OK. Well, I can add a little bit more to that. Is that it Mike?

Lehman: Yes.

Stutsman: OK. Thank you.

Thompson: Why don’t you go ahead and finish with that?

Stutsman: Oh. Well, I was going to say what was good is that legislators don’t always have the perspective from the local elected officials, and so by Tom being there, he could explain to them how the budgeting process works. I think it was insightful even for some staff members what was going on. I told Tom afterwards, I think he got himself appointed to an Interim Study Committee whether he realized it or not, but it was very valuable to listen in on that discussion and to see how those decisions are made. To continue on with the County a Day Program, this is a program that ISAC, Iowa State Association of Counties, initiated last year. What they do is that they offer an invitation for county officials to go up and visit with legislators on specific days. So, a county signs up for a day, and that’s a day you go up to the Hill. You’re briefed briefly by staff of ISAC about issues that are coming up that day, and then you’re taken up to the capital and then you have an opportunity to sit on committee meetings or visit with legislators about specific issues that are relevant to counties. So, it’s a great opportunity to have an organized program like that to address to our legislators. So, we met with ISAC staff and then we went to different committee meetings and as Mike said, most of us went to the one on property tax freeze. It’s interesting to see the process, how it’s working and how important it is to communicate with legislators on bills before them. This was funnel week, so everybody was very, very, very busy and it gave new perspective on what they mean by funnel week and all the work that goes into trying to get bills out of committee. If they’re not gotten out of committee this week, then they die more or less for this legislative session. So, there was a lot of activity going on. I can’t say enough about our legislative delegation and being responsive to us. Joe Bolkcom organized lunch for all of the officials that went up that day. It was good to have lunch with them and talk about issues that were coming up. That’s when we heard Minnette’s frustration at being part of the Judicial Committee that morning and all those bills that were voted out of the subcommittee that will go on to the legislature to be debated, that will add longer sentences onto people being accused of crimes. So, it was a productive day. Had a tremendous tour of the Secretary of State’s Office and had an opportunity to see the renovations that were going on. So, that was good. I want to thank Carol Peters for all her work in organizing this day. She is just a trooper in getting everybody at the right place at the right time and organizing it. So, we had 2 cars that went up and it was a lot of work. Last year we got snowed out by golly. This year we didn’t get snowed out. So, I thank Carol for all of her work in getting that organized. Everybody got to their places on time and it was a good day.

Peters: I’d just like to add one thing to it. You said it was an enlightening experience for staff. It definitely was. I know I visited with the other 2 staff members that went and I know they were appreciative of you setting up the date.

Stutsman: Well, next year I’ll know when funnel week is and maybe avoid that day. In a way it was good, too, to be a part of that. I think ISAC was apologizing to county officials because they said you’re not going to have much time to visit with your legislators because they’re just going to be busy in Subcommittee meetings. But, I felt we still had an opportunity to visit. It wasn’t long lingering conversations in the halls by any means.

Peters: But, I think too, it gave an opportunity to see how the state legislatures work just on a day to day basis rather than everything being in a set setting so to say.

Jordahl: We did kind of have an opportunity to get in the last word in that Subcommittee meeting on the tax freeze. It’s something to be said for coming right at the funnel time. Well, and the way that committee meeting started was that the Chairperson, who is Hubert Howser, started out by saying, I have heard a lot on this issue. So, that reaffirmed how important it is to communicate with legislators. Basically, what they decided at that Committee meeting, which is always subject to change, is that they are going to refer it to a study committee. Because repeatedly they kept saying, we don’t know what the impact of this bill will be on local elected officials, both cities and counties. It would be premature to enact legislation that we don’t know what it’s going to be. So, that to me seemed like a very reasonable approach to this very complicated piece of legislation, is to sit back and really have a good idea of what it’s going to mean. I want to also thank Jonathan for pitch hitting for me on Tuesday night. I know it was short notice. I was not in any shape to go up there and more than anything I didn’t want to expose anybody else to what I had. Believe you me, I did everybody a big favor by staying away. But, I really appreciate you at the last minute sitting in for me on that. You never pick when you can be sick and it’s never a good time and this was one of those not good times. But, anyway, we dealt with it and I do appreciate again your doing that for me.

Jordahl: I’m always willing to talk.

Stutsman: Yes. OK. I want to just report briefly on Decat. We had a Decat Joint Executive and Planning Committee meeting. It was decided that we will have $15,000 available for summer programs this year and RFP’s will be issued for summer programming and they will be, the proposals, will be due March 17th and the decisions will be made on April 7th. There will be $175,000 available for programming for next year. It was decided that we would fund a minimum of 6 programs and basically our just sending out RFP’s that will go out the end of March and asking providers to put proposals together. It will be the decision of the planning committee and ultimately the executive board as to which programs we’ll be funding. It continues to be discouraging that Decat money has continued to go down for funding of both summers programs and regular programming during the year. But, we do the best we can. I think that’s everything that I had. I don’t know if there’s anything anybody else added. There is a legislative forum this Saturday morning at 9:30, sponsored by the League of Women voters. I think there also is one sponsored by the Chamber from 8-9. Mike is that correct? Did anybody say anything about that this morning?

Lehman: I had to leave early, so I didn’t catch that.

Stutsman: Oh. OK. I think that usually they have the Chamber Legislative Forum and then they have the League of Women Voters.

Thompson: I had some things to report.

Stutsman: Did I miss you? I did.

Thompson: Well, I skipped because…

Stutsman: Oh. OK.

Jordahl: Let me quick ask you a question before we go to Carol’s reports, about Decat. Would it be possible for the Board to put more money into Decat, or is that something that can only (inaudible).

Stutsman: No, no, that’s entirely possible.

Thompson: We do. We have put some money into Decat.

Jordahl: For?

Stutsman: (Inaudible) ties.

Jordahl: Yes. So, to deal with the situation (inaudible) by MH/DD that’s one possibility.

Stutsman: Right. Right.

Jordahl: Thank you.

Stutsman: I don’t know if we can do MH/MR/DD. I think we need to maybe have a informal session about funding into that fund. I can understand people’s interest in putting more dollars into that fund. I need to be very clear that we understand what we can and cannot do as far as putting additional dollars to that fund. So, I think we’re to the point where we need to have input from the auditor and from Elaine, and maybe even Sandy Holt about what we can do with it.

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: So we’re not painting any misleading pictures about what we can do with that fund.

Jordahl: Right. Well, and Cheryl Whitney. We need to get a big table.

Stutsman: Yes. I agree. So, someday when things slow down we’ll have that discussion. Probably sooner than later. But, anyway, Carol.

Thompson: Well, I got the morning session of the Regional Land Use Conference and I wanted to mention that R.J. Moore, from the Planning and Zoning staff made a very informative presentation on fringe area agreements, which was well received. The Financial Consultant Work Group met on Tuesday. We’ve already talked about that. The Space Needs Committee met last Friday morning and we reiterated again unanimously our support for the Jail as the priority project for the County. We also discussed the campus concept, which we’ve had some prior discussions about, and agreed again that the mini-campuses at the Mall Drive or Sycamore Mall site, the area between this building and the courthouse and the Melrose Avenue site would be things that we would support and recommend to the Board. We’re trying to work out a map for the area around us that would designate properties that we’re interested in looking at, so that we’d know when requests come in we could look at the map and say, well, that’s one we want to go look at or that’s one we don’t. Because now we are getting a considerable number of requests from people who have property to sell. We also are looking at a budget for the money that the County has saved. We should be able to finalize that by next meeting and we’ll be back to the Board with a recommendation for how we set aside amounts in that budget for specific projects at the request of the County Auditor. Then, the Housing Task Force met last weekend. Once again, we had enough money to have 10 rehab projects in the County and we’ve now approved 4 applicants. So, we still have 6 projects that are available to be funded. This is for owner occupied rehab in the part of the County that’s not in Iowa City or Coralville. If anyone wants to get an application, they should call this office at 356-6000 and we’ll send out an application. That’s 356-6000. Then the Finance Work Group met and we’re drafting some materials that will go out to the public at the public hearing about our budget. Those are going back and forth. You guys are getting them to look at and then we work on them some more. There will be a lot of discourse before we come up with final documents by the time of the public hearing. That’s all for me.

Stutsman: OK. Very good. Inquiries and reports from the public.

Welsh: Before I mention, let me mention the fact that next Monday evening at 7:00, 7-8:30, the Cluster Board is airing the meeting where we will present the Governor’s Task Force report on child care and early education. We’ll be not only discussing that, but (inaudible) what will be done for the implementation that what are some possible things that can be done in Johnson County in that little area. The other thing, I would hope you will say something about the public hearings coming up on the MH/DD, so that the public will know about that and for basic issues that were being discussed during that management time. Because, I think that would be of importance , to give people notified and get that on her couch.

Thompson: Did you say the child care meeting was Monday at 7?

Welsh: 7:00.

Thompson: In this room?

Jordahl: Yes.

Thompson: OK. Thank you.

Stutsman: The dates for that MH/MR/DD public hearing on the management plan are scheduled for Wednesday, March 8th at 6:30, in this room, and for Thursday, March 9th, at 1:30 in this room. We have one in the evening and one in the morning. The managed plan basically lays out what services the County will provide for persons with disabilities and how those services will be funded. Lots of very important decisions made in that plan and so it’s important to have input in that.

Welsh: You might say when people could pick up copies of that and be able to review it prior to that.

Stutsman: I was unable to attend the executive community meeting on Tuesday. Was a decision made those copies would be available?

Jordahl: Elaine was still working on that.

Lehman: I think she was hoping to maybe have about 10 days.

Stutsman: OK. We’ll find out and let people know.

Peters: March 2nd.

Stutsman: March 2nd. Thank you Carol.

Peters: For sure. It may be ready earlier than that but by March 2nd for sure.

Stutsman: That plan I am assuming will be on the web, too, as well as hard copies can be copied from the Board Room or from Elaine’s suite, Director of the MH/MR/DD Unit.

Jordahl: The Board, on that topic, Board Members should know that the Executive Committee did concur with Elaine on the idea of including as a kind of recommendation from the Executive Committee, although not as part of the recommendation from the Planning Council. So, highlight it in italics or something, a set of criteria pertinent to the child care funding. So, that’s going to be there for public discussion as part of the plan, but isolate it as not what was recommended by the Planning Council. But, we, as Executive Committee with Elaine, felt that that was important to do.

Stutsman: To clarify the process, the plan goes through a public hearing process and then comes to the Board of Supervisors for final approval after input from the hearing process and input from the Planning Council. Lots of steps along the way in putting that plan together.

Jordahl: (Inaudible) those criteria are just the state criteria.

Stutsman: Oh. OK.

Jordahl: Just basically patching over the text.

Stutsman: Oh. For child care. OK. Well, good.

Peters: Excuse me. There is one other item that people may be interested in. There will be a notice on these public hearings, so there’ll be a notice in the paper regarding it.

Stutsman: On the MH/MR/DD public hearing. That’s very good. All right. Any other reports or inquiries?

Harold Stager: Well, I’d like to think that when (inaudible) all the lights will (inaudible).

Stutsman: Harold Stager.

Stager: All I want to say is, the (inaudible) level of teenage drinking. I’d like to see them go to have an option. Go take a cold shower or leave your wallet here and (inaudible). Take them home. We won’t have any jail time. Why do you want to go on a child file (inaudible) that couldn’t be solved very easily? Really, I see no sense (inaudible). You’re going to do that, I’ll go out with Jonathan saying put him on the (inaudible). As far as I’m concerned, (inaudible) is welcome to a cold shower. That’ll do more for getting you sober than anything (inaudible).

Emerson: What if they slip and fall in the shower?

Stager: (Inaudible). Because they’re so drunk.

Stutsman: All right. Thank you very much Harold for your input. Anything else before we adjourn? OK. I’d like to thank everybody and we are adjourned.

Adjourned at 11:46 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary