MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

JUNE 20, 2000

ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING

(Transcript Style)

Summary Style

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chairperson Painter called the Johnson County Elected Officials Meeting to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:33 p.m.

Elected officials present were: County Attorney J. Patrick White; County Auditor Tom Slockett; County Recorder Kim Painter; County Sheriff Bob Carpenter; County Supervisors Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson; and County Treasurer Tom Kriz. Staff present was Auditor’s Office Recording Secretary Casie Parkins.

County Recorder Kim Painter: First of all I want to say thank you to Pat White for doing such a splendid job as Chair over a very long period of time and agreeing to do it more than one year in a row.

County Attorney J. Patrick White: It wasn’t as long as it seemed.

Painter: Was it 2 years?

White: I don’t remember when we started. How long has that been?

County Treasurer Tom Kriz: Longer than you may want to think.

White: A lot of things are longer than I like to think.

Painter: Well, anyway, thank you very much.

County Auditor Tom Slockett: I agree, and in no diminution of our new esteemed Chair at all, but I think if Pat White wouldn’t have refused he would probably still be Chair.

Painter: I certainly wouldn’t have jumped in and assisted I will tell you that right now. We have several things to discuss, so let’s start out with our reports and inquiries from elected officials. Carol?

REPORT (THOMPSON): CALENDAR FOR JAIL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Thompson: Should I pass out the jail thing now? Is that an appropriate thing to do in this report? One of the things that we have been working on is the calendar, which would get us to the decision about the jail bond issue by August 30th, which is the deadline. We want to keep it real clear that this is not a decision whether to do it or not. It is just a schedule that will get us to the decision by the deadline date. I will pass this around.

White: It turned out to be a whole lot earlier than we thought.

Thompson: Yes, it is a tight schedule. We have to stay on task. But this allows for 3 work sessions with the Board and various groups like the Jail Steering Committee that we have agreed to videotape and give to Public Access TV so they can be played over and over. Also, they will be on the Government Access Channel. The first one is July 6th and the question there will be: why do we need a new jail? The following week the Board of Supervisors would vote on whether to build a new jail. The second work session would be August 3rd and that will be a discussion of the site. A Site Selection Committee would be appointed at the July 13th meeting, if the Board decides to go ahead with the Jail. On August 3rd there would be a videotaped joint work session with the Committee, listing what sites were considered and what criteria they were ranked against and a recommendation about which one to select. The following week we would vote on a site. We would also have a joint work session on August 10th about how to fund a jail. That would give us the chance to consider the estimated costs and what the options were regarding funding, like- do we have to have a bond issue? Could we have a local participation loan? Does it have to go on the ballot in November? Then, the vote on that would happen on August 24th, which would get us in under the August 30 deadline at 5:00 p.m. The actual ballot language could be decided between August 30th and September 27th, which is the deadline for that. I want to make it real clear to everyone that at any point, if we don’t decide to go ahead, the whole schedule changes. No decisions have been made in advance. Keep that real clear. We want to carefully consider all of the information as we go along.

Slockett: I had a question as to why it is so important to make this decision by an August 30th deadline. It seems to me the decision is far more important than the deadline. What I fear is that we are abandoning the best location for the jail in order to meet this premature deadline. To me, in the long view of a historical perspective, it would seem like a very short sighted decision making process.

Thompson: The Board appointed a citizens’ committee last fall and they came in, in January, with their recommendation after they studied the information. It doesn’t seem to me to be precipitant to be able to reach a decision from the Board by August 30th.

Slockett: I disagree. I think by deciding that you are going to make the decision by August 30th, regardless of location, may mean that you will select an available site rather than the best and most appropriate site. That could jeopardize the vote. Separating the location of the jail from the decision about whether to build a jail is unwise.

Thompson: No, we are not separating them, we are doing them in order. First you decide to do it, then you look at the sites.

Slockett: To me, making the decision to go ahead and build it before you decide where to put it, means that you are separating the decisions.

Jordahl: We need to narrow down what is actually being discussed here.

Thompson: Actually, since this is just a report, we probably can’t.

Jordahl: We are not taking action here, I just want to clarify what Tom is saying, because he has raised a question. It’s whether we are proceeding properly or not.

Slockett: Wisely is the way I would put it.

Jordahl: Wisely. Tom and I are very precise about our words. I would prefer that it didn’t say- votes on building a new jail; but rather something like- decides to go forward with the jail project. So that what we are actually deciding is not on a particular design of the jail; it’s not that concrete. We are deciding that we need a jail. For me, I could have voted that we need a jail 6 months ago. To me, this is not a question. It seems that we are going to wait until July 13th. That must have something to do with some specific plan for the jail. What is it going to look like? How much is it going to cost? That decision is not dependent on what it looks like, what it is going to cost. We need to build a new jail, period. And so I would like to see this agenda item reflect that.

Thompson: This is just a calendar.

Jordahl: A calendar of what, is the question? I am saying that the what is much more vague than you are taking it to be.

Slockett: Well, it’s a calendar by which you have agreed whether or not to make the decision by July 13th. Is that right?

Thompson: Yes, considering the information that we hear in our public session on the 6th.

Slockett: It’s not just a calendar, it’s like just saying the shape of the table we are discussing here (doesn’t matter) in the negotiations.

Thompson: We cannot have a 48-hour meeting to discuss everything at once, that wouldn’t be wise.

Slockett: Well, it seems to me the decision about whether or not to build it ought to follow the important criteria involved in that decision, such as where to build it.

Jordahl: You wouldn’t for a minute suggest that we don’t need a new jail, would you?

Slockett: Yes, I would suggest that.

Jordahl: Have you talked to this man over here recently?

County Sheriff Bob Carpenter: He has, but he doesn’t listen.

Slockett: With all due respect, I listen, but I don’t necessarily agree. I think that a lot of factors play into whether or not that is a wise thing to do at this point in time. Frankly I have been quite disconcerted hearing a number of members of the Board of Supervisors talk about the Courthouse, because it is not a secure site, should be abandoned and turned into a museum. To me, that kind of attitude is disturbing in the view of history, the people who went before us, and the importance of the Courthouse in our culture. If that kind of thought process is behind this notion to build a jail at any cost at any location and abandon our Courthouse site for the future, I think that is very wrong-headed thinking. I also believe if the jail is moved to a separate site that it is only rational to also move the court function and the facility for the court building, in close conjunction with it, in the long-term. I think we ought to look in the long-term for these decisions and not just make a decision now because someone is planning on being in office for 4 years. I think government makes huge mistakes when it plans its decisions around the people who are currently in it. We ought to have a longer view.

Jordahl: Who is doing that?

Slockett: I think that is a danger in the decision-making process

Jordahl: You think that after I retire from the Board perhaps…

Slockett: No, Jonathan, do not take this personally, please.

Jordahl: Well, you have very few people to choose from here, who are you thinking of?

Stutsman: Yes.

Slockett: I am thinking of everyone in this room; that this decision could last for centuries. The notion that the people here want to hurry up and make it because they don’t see the University instantly turning the necessary land to us next to our valuable Courthouse home base. I think that that is very shortsighted. This is a simple decision; we just appoint a committee, have them vote on it, and then we back them and we don’t have to think about it. Well, I’m saying, let’s think about it; this is important. It’s going to have implications that are going to last longer than everyone in this room. I don’t think that we are all keeping that perspective in mind.

Thompson: The meeting on July 6th is the 1st meeting of 3. We made a partial list of things that is not an all-inclusive list, but some things that we can consider that day. After that, we will make the first decision. It is in steps, there is plenty of time for public input. We are doing our best to get the thing on the Web and disseminate it to the public and the press by television and the other ways that we can think of. I don’t think of it as just a decision that we will make with no input that has already been decided.

Slockett: That is not what I am saying. I don’t think that you are hearing what I am saying. Let me try and focus a little more. Why is it so important to have this on the November ballot along with the 1st Avenue extension and the Library? Is it really worth rushing this decision in order to put the vote in competition with those 2 votes?

Carpenter: I think that you of all people would realize that if we don’t make a move and make it fairly shortly, it is going to cost this County a lot of money. I think that you would be interested in saving as much money as possible, as the Auditor.

Slockett: I am, but I also…

Carpenter: Well, then stop and think, how much is 1st Avenue or the Library going to cost somebody if it doesn’t get passed? I am going to tell you that if the jail doesn’t get passed in November, it is going to start costing the County a million dollars a year- because we are not moving- if not more. Now, if that doesn’t make any difference to you, then that is your problem, not mine. I am concerned as a taxpayer. I am glad to know, because your name is on the ballot, too, this year. But at the same time, I don’t want to pay any more money out than I absolutely have to for a new jail. The longer that you continue to put this off, thinking that the University is going to give you some land, I think that you are wrong. Pat White has already had 2 meetings with them, and I don’t think Pat is convinced that they have given him any idea that they are going to give him any property in that area. Number 2, what is valuable about the jail where it’s 20 years old, what is historical about it?

Slockett: What’s valuable to me is that it is in close proximity to the Courthouse.

Carpenter: What does that have to do with the Courthouse? Because I will tell you I still put the inmates in a car and move them. It doesn’t make any difference if I move them one mile or four miles. I have to put them in a car.

Slockett: You could possibly build the new facility between the Jail and the Courthouse and in closer proximity to it and have tunnels or…

Painter: Excuse me, Tom. I don’t want start out on the wrong foot and develop a reputation for attempting to quash debate, but I want to defer to some people who have a better understanding of exactly how we might need to interpret the first part of this agenda. It feels like we are launching into a very meaty and substantive debate, which is a wonderful thing, but it is not properly on the agenda as such.

Slockett: A very what kind of debate?

Painter: A meaty debate, substantive.

Slockett: I agree. I didn’t know that this was going to be handed out. But I don’t think we should… If we shouldn’t discuss it, then it shouldn’t have been handed out. If it could be handed out, then it obviously should be discussed.

White: The agenda says reports and inquiries; so I think it is appropriate to hand out. The problem would come at the point that we begin to deliberate.

Jordahl: Which was some time ago, I understand.

White: It is a good point. We need to talk about it to the extent that we have differences among ourselves. Whatever we are going to ask the voters to do will be that much harder to persuade them. We certainly do need to thrash this out.

Slockett: With the permission of our honorable Chairperson, I would just like to make one more point, and that is to answer the question about costs. Bob is correct, as Auditor, I am very concerned about costs. But I also think even a million dollars over the course of the next 200 years, that loss could, if we made what I consider to be a better location for the proximity of the jail and the Courthouse, those dollars could be saved in the long run.

Jordahl: The efficiency of staffing the facility on the existing site, including being part of the existing facility would be part of any new building, is one of the issues. All these reasons have come out in the discussion as it has been conducted by the Study Committee. They really did a thorough job of this. Like I said, I could have done this 6 months ago to say that we need a new jail.

Slockett: I wish we wouldn’t turn discussion of this as being some type of criticism of the wonderful volunteer committee that I have nothing but deep respect for. But I think that there are some issues that have not been fully fleshed out and I don’t think that having a committee vote a certain way absolves the Supervisors of the ultimate responsibility in these decisions.

Jordahl: I don’t think absolution has been sought.

Thompson: Maybe after you have the chance to come to the meeting on July 6th and hear the facts that they have collected, then maybe you will change your mind, too. Maybe we all will.

Slockett: I am sorry that we can’t discuss this more. I am fairly well- informed about it. In fact, I believe that if we build a jail, we ought to abandon the current structure, because it wasn’t designed efficiently for holding back the costs on personnel, and so forth, as new technology is made available. There are a lot of things to discuss.

Jordahl: How is that statement consistent with your earlier concerns about whether we are deciding to build a jail or not? To say that you think that if we build a new jail, then we should abandon our current facility.

Slockett: Yes, I think it is perfectly consistent.

Jordahl: How does it cohere with it?

Slockett: I am willing to discuss this, but it seems to me that we are opening another huge subject.

Painter: One of the concerns that I have is that this is a terrific group of people and public servants. I think a broad spectrum of the public would love to have been aware of the fact that this particular group of people was going to have a debate of the jail.

Slockett: I move that we put this on the next agenda.

Jordahl: That agenda will however occur after…

Painter: That does not require a motion, but it is going to be kind of late for the conversation. But certainly…

Jordahl: Our next meeting, unless we schedule…

Carpenter: I would encourage that the other elected officials, before the next meeting, take some time on their own to try and find out the answers to any questions they may have. Because I think that a little education will answer a lot of these questions that some people have.

Thompson: Bob has said that he is willing to take people through the Jail. How much notice do you need?

Carpenter: Well, they are going to have to call and make an appointment. I cannot just interfere with my staff anytime somebody just walks in off the street. They are going to have to call and if I can get a group together, I will put them through. The 2 you mentioned have notified me that they are not interested. So, I don’t know what to do with that. People that have an interest and then all of a sudden they don’t want to, I don’t know what to tell you. I will be glad to facilitate as best as I can, but I still have to operate a jail.

Jordahl: When will that next meeting be? I would think that if we would tempt her, she would report on something even more controversial.

Painter: You are asking a meeting of Carol?

Jordahl: No, a meeting of Tom’s issue, the jail discussion among elected officials.

Painter: Well, we will set our next meeting time more towards the end of this meeting. Usually it is every two months, so sometime in August.

Jordahl: On the other hand, if we are trying to make a final decision at the end of August, we might want to think about having a special jail discussion meeting. If in fact we want to have this particular group of people do it in public.

White: One of the things about the schedule or the calendar that I am not clear on is the meaning of August 30th and September 27th. Why is August 30th the deadline for putting it on the ballot, but the 27th the deadline for setting ballot language?

Slockett: Is that the last Board meeting before the 30th? I don’t know. I didn’t create this schedule.

Thompson: Yes, the 24th is the last meeting before the 30th, which you told us is the deadline for deciding. You said that we had to have the ballot by 40 days before the election.

Slockett: I was asked when is the deadline, and I reported August 30th, to notify me.

Thompson: I don’t know why the ballot language and the deadline are not the same day.

White: Why do we have 4 more weeks to do the language.

Slockett: Oh, August, September. I was misreading the schedule.

Thompson: You said it had to be in 40 days before, to get the ballot language in place.

Slockett: No, we need the ballot language by the 30th. I don’t know where this deadline…

Thompson: At the last jail consultant meeting. You took your pocket calendar out and figured back 40 days and told us September 27th was the deadline for the ballot language. We do know that August 30th, I hope, is the correct date.

Duffy arrived at 1:55 p.m.

Jordahl: Back to Pat’s question, why are there 2 different dates.

Slockett: I don’t believe there should be 2 different dates.

White: Is there anybody we can call and find out for sure?

Slockett: Let me go find out right now.

White: When is Election Day?

Thompson: November 6th or 7th

Slockett: 40 days before. 40 days before is when the ballots are ready, so that would be way too late. So I am sure, that is correct. August 30th…

Jordahl: So, the 27th is the deadline for printing ballots, or something like that?

Slockett: September 27th is the deadline for having them available.

Jordahl: Available for early voting, that is what you would say.

Slockett: So, it would be August 30th is the deadline for the language as well.

Thompson: OK.

Slockett: I remember the discussion now, the discussion was why is August 30th the deadline. That is so far away from the election. I then got out my pocket calendar and calculated because we have to have the ballots available on September 27th and you need time for printing and so forth.

Jordahl: Why does it say 5:00 p.m. though?

Slockett: Because that is the state law.

Jordahl: Boy, you give a long report, Carol. I don’t know; when are you going to be more brief about this stuff?

Slockett: (to Recording Secretary Casie Parkins) Could you pull up our Web site and I’ll check the calendar.

Painter: Next time, start to your right.

Thompson: Want me to bring up NAPIS.

Painter: While Casie looks that up, did you have anything else?

Thompson: I am finished. I think I will quit while I am ahead here.

White: It has been a long time since I looked seriously at the filing deadlines, but don’t candidates, by petition, have until September sometime?

Slockett: It is all the same deadline, so that is why I am having Casie pull it up. Thompson: Should we go on to Charlie’s report?

Painter: I think that’s safe.

Duffy: (Inaudible) I would suggest to come down there especially if you’re hungry.

Thompson: Should have gone at lunch, huh?

Painter: Pat?

(Continued in Transcript Part 2)