Painter: OK. Next item is the GIS Coordinator. Pat, I don’t know if you want to lay some background.

White: Yes. I asked to put this on and I’m surely guilty of being a Johnny-come-lately here. I know very little about GIS. But I continue to read all the material that gets circulated about the description and goals. I confess to still being fuzzy on what the ultimate overall County goal is. But my question and the discussion I wanted to prompt was whether a new position reporting directly to the Board, everybody’s on board that that’s the best way to do it. I have some reservations about that. Because, as the Board knows, I think you folks have a tendency to give yourself too much to do, get too much on your plate. Supervising somebody who reports to a multimember Board is automatically complicated and difficult. You’ve initiated a system trying to evaluate all the people that report to you. I assume by now you’ve found that to be productive but an enormous time-consumer. I just know that we were meeting and the time was coming when you were going to have to decide whether to fish or cut bait in terms of how this was organized. Wanted to volunteer the opinion that at least from my perspective, you ought at least to consider housing this new employee in an existing department rather than creating a new position that reports directly to you.

Stutsman: Do you have any thoughts about which department?

White: Well, I think it could be Information Services. I think it could be Zoning. I think it could be any of the real estate offices that exist. I don’t claim to know enough about GIS to be able to make that specific recommendation to you. I think Human Resources was logical to report directly to the Board. I’d argued for that for a number of years. But I’m having trouble understanding how GIS needs to reflect Board policy as opposed to delivering a service to other County departments and to the public.

Stutsman: I agree with what you’re saying. It seems to me a logical place would be Information Services.

Jordahl: I think our intention had been in earlier discussions to have the person physically housed in Information Services because, a) they had room, and b) the person would be working with computers a lot. But the reporting structure business was discussed ad nauseam with the Computer Committee and the GIS Subcommittee. With the multiple blood drawing contests and votes and so forth, resulting in near unanimous support for this being a position that reports to the Board. It has been nothing, if not vetted, but that doesn’t mean the right decision was made. I see the logic of your point.

White: I gather though, from what I now see, that the Computer Committee is about to meet and make a recommendation to you. I’m assuming that that’s not cast in stone.

Jordahl: Well, I think it’s been cast in stone and covered with iron and bronzed and buried and moldered. We made this decision probably last year I think. It doesn’t mean we can’t change it.

Slockett: I can add that as someone attending the meetings that your point has been brought up repeatedly and solidly rejected by everyone on the Committee, except me. I agree completely with you. In my opinion, as I’ve said, first I believe that it should be in the Auditor’s Office, because that’s where the people who are doing the work are. Just imagine. This causes all kinds of problems for the management of my office, when the function of our office is singled out. Someone at a much higher level than the deputies in my office is to be hired to coordinate that area along with Information Services, where the files would reside that GIS should be hooked up with. I’ve got people in my office who want the position and you can imagine. I’ve had people from all of your offices, I think everyone in this room and a lot of other departments, who want something they’re not getting from their department, who have talked to me to aid and abet them. I have never done it. I don’t believe that’s proper at all. I always listen to people and I hope that I’m not dismissive of them. But this is natural human behavior and those behaviors are encouraged by this kind of thing. It’ll continue, I assume, in the future. What if the Coordinator wants to coordinate my office in a way I don’t want it to be coordinated. I really believe what I’ve said all along. I believe the position first should be in the Auditor’s Office. I realize I’m really biased on that. My 2nd choice would be in Information Services and the very last thing that I would think is wise is to put it in the Board Office.

White: Would Planning and Zoning be an option?

Slockett: Planning and Zoning would be an option. I don’t think it would be appropriate.

Stutsman: Secondary Roads would be an option.

Slockett: Secondary Roads would be a viable option. Those are all options. My own personal view is that the reason that this is almost unanimously decided upon is that that’s what the Assessors have decided they want and Jonathan was clearly in favor of that and I don’t think anyone could doubt. It’s perceived that Jean wanted it. Although, I don’t know how Jean would. To me, what GIS is doing is it’s combining the mapping with the databases. That really is, in a nutshell, what is happening. Those are the 2 offices, where the mapping is, in the Auditor’s Office and there is some limited mapping done in Zoning. But the expertise, frankly, of the Zoning mapping and the Auditor’s Office mapping and the personnel involved, there really is no comparison of the skills in those 2 offices. Zoning essentially takes the mapping done in the Auditor’s Office and copies over the top of it. That’s an oversimplification and I don’t mean to in any way disparage the skills of the people in Zoning. But it’s much easier to make a zoning map over a pre-existing map than it is to create that map in all the levels of detail that we do in the Auditor’s Office. If there was anyway to convince, if there’s a feeling that the Assessors don’t want it in the Auditor’s Office for some reason, and that’s an important reason to people, then put it in Information Services. I think that would be fine. I don’t think the physical location is nearly as important as who the person reports to and the management structure and so forth.

Stutsman left at 2:44 p.m.

Jordahl: So, you’d be more pleased to have this person report to Jean Schultz, who reports to the Board, than have this person report to the Board.

Slockett: Right.

Jordahl: Now, I want to highlight here the administrative structure of the County. You don’t want this person in the Board Office. Essentially Jean Schultz is in the Board Office, as is every other appointed department head in the Board Office. We don’t have room for them all here; that’s why we gave them offices in other places. But that’s all part of the Board of Supervisors’ administration. To suggest that this person is somehow outside of that administrative structure and somehow would be more appropriately placed in another office that’s equally under the Board’s administration and authority, doesn’t quite make sense to me. What is gained?

Slockett: Well, the City Manager is also directed by the City Council, but that doesn’t mean the Roads Department reports directly to the Council and not through the City Manager. I just think it’s an entirely different management structure.

Jordahl: What about Lora? Is it evil to have everyone in the County with a Human Resources concern, such as any employees, report to Lora with regard to Human Resources concerns and then to draw up on her as a resource? What’s the difference?

Slockett: I think that’s a rhetorical question.

White: Function. Function is the word. The goal with Human Resources is to develop a central personnel function.

Jordahl: Yes. What’s the goal of GIS?

White: I disclaim much knowledge about GIS.

Jordahl: It’s to develop a central GIS function.

White: How is that expansive on the existing Information Services function, to take them for the sake of…

Jordahl: It’s more intradepartmental. It sort of builds on the networking function of Information Services. We used to have departments that were much more isolated, now we’re networked. People can share information. They all got e-mail. With GIS we’re going to be able to actually draw the information from between departments and correlate it in a map-based database relationship. That’s what GIS will gain us. It’s this essentially interdepartmental thing, where Information Services is dealing with the functions more within departments.

White: I’m not trying to debate GIS. I’m just trying to debate the most efficient supervision for the function. My sense is the 5 Supervisors are not the best supervisors of service delivery. It’s hard to get direction from 5 people. You put it in another office, the GIS Coordinator can go into the department head’s office, close the door and say, here’s a problem, help me solve it. You can’t do that with 5 supervisors.

Jordahl: Yes. Well, it would be a nonstarter to try to argue that. Obviously it’s more efficient to have one person providing supervision. Tom’s referred to the City Manager. Yes, a County Manager would clearly be a more efficient form of supervision of that GIS Coordinator. But I don’t think you’re going to want to go public with that idea.

White: No, I’m not. You need to understand, I’m the same guy who has always recommended the Deputy Administrative Assistant position report directly to Carol Peters than to you guys. You’ve moved away from that, which you obviously know that position and what your needs are. But I just think the more you streamline supervision and authority, the more efficiency you get.

Jordahl: Well, I don’t want to disagree with you. I think that the position would make more sense, probably, in Information Services. But the decision that was made by the committees came out of a resolution of a long standing historic conflict over turf, as to who is going to have what power over computing and what portion of computing, and so forth. As that contest wound itself out, I think the assertion that I caused the Committee to come to any one decision or another is off base. I think that the dynamics of that tension caused the resolution to need to be something in the middle. Because earlier in that argument, to have said, this should be in Information Services, would have been to take sides with one of the parties.

Slockett: That’s not fair.

Duffy: We’re going to present Jim McGinley with a plaque. Some of the folks would like to have the Supervisors down there. If you can’t make it, OK.

Jordahl: At 3:00?

Duffy: Down at the Jail. It’s going to be presented as soon as you get down there.

Duffy left at 2:46 p.m.

Jordahl: So, that’s the deal Pat. I think the answer is yes. It would make more sense in Information Services, but the Committee got to where it got to honestly.

White: I don’t doubt that. One of my questions was, you both have maybe answered it indirectly was, is there any residual rationale here going back to whatever conflict there was over the old mapping project and I gather there is. Maybe that history is part of the decision.

Jordahl: Clearly.

Slockett: Well, I would say all of these things are reflected through the people in the meetings and I think that Jonathan underrates his persuasive powers and his ability to lead a meeting, to make a strong case and to have that an impact on the vote. I think that what he has said here today is a perfect example of how strong an advocate he was during the process. I would argue that, if he would have argued to put it in Information Services, it would have gone there, but I could be wrong about that. I wouldn’t have opposed that. I would have been happier with that decision than the one that we have going forward now. The other thing is, I really believe that it’s by appointing committees the Board does not absolve its responsibility to make independent judgments. I think it would be perfectly fine for the Board to say, we appreciate all the work that the committees have done and we’ve heard their arguments to make the person report to us directly, but we respectfully disagree and we’ve decided to place it in Information Services. I doubt if anyone would be very upset with that. I think that would be a better solution.

Jordahl: Very interesting. Did you get that down Casie?

Recording Secretary Casie Parkins: I will.

Slockett: Well, we’ve talked about this before Jonathan. You’ve known before today that that was my position.

Jordahl: Yes, but it’s kind of interesting to hear it stated so clearly. I wouldn’t oppose that. I wouldn’t have opposed it had the Committee come up with it. It’s an inaccurate reflection of my contribution to the Committee to suggest that I try to drive the solution to an interdepartmental one.

Slockett: Well, I’m not saying it in a negative way. I’m saying that I think that was one of the reasons the decision was reached. That could be taken as a compliment by you, if you were so inclined.

Jordahl: If I were inclined to manipulate people, yes.

Slockett: Not manipulate, to persuade.

White: Jonathan, it can happen even when you’re not inclined to manipulate, just by the nature of your position. I don’t know whether it happened here.

Jordahl: Well, it may be. I would say, if I were going to take credit for changing the direction of the Committee, my direction is always to try to balance, mediate, moderate, find a solution that accurately addresses the concerns. If the thing ended up in the middle because I was trying to do that, well, mea culpa.

Painter: I don’t think anybody’s necessarily pointing mea culpa. I do think that often our processes are driven by our perceptions of past history and our best attempts to make current and future history somehow come to terms with that in the most positive manner, which I think is probably what you did. The alternative is of course to sort of either confront or deny past history, depending on how you want to describe it, and just say this is the decision. We feel it’s the best to build on for future decision making and future County life. You are adults, you are our appointees and other elected officials and you will deal with this. That’s a different option and that could have been done, too, I think equally well.

Jordahl: Well that’s fine. I’m so glad you’re a part of County government Kim.

White: Thanks.

Painter: We’re at Human Resource Services for elected officials. Now, I’m just going to keep going through this agenda. If other people feel they need to depart, I guess it’s an unfortunate scheduling conflict that we have with Jim’s departure celebration over there. But these are also really important issues.

Slockett: Well, I put this on, not knowing what the schedule would be like today. I would take the opportunity to move this to the next meeting agenda, if that would be acceptable with everyone else.

Painter: That’s fine with me.

Painter: Agenda item number 5 was one that I had talked about with Pat White. It’s an issue that’s come up with some of the services that we provide and how or if or whether we should price differently for corporate type entities as opposed to individuals and what the Code says about that. Other people were interested in that. So, I’m happy to move that to next time also. So, are there any other items that anybody does want to talk about today?

Jordahl: Real quickly. I got this thing and maybe you all got it, too, about computer training, Microsoft Office. This looks like a heck of a good deal. It’s $59 for a one-day workshop. Dozens of tips, shortcuts and hidden features that can help you whisk through projects and turn out professional looking work every time. Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook and Access. We’ve all got it. $59 bucks isn’t much.

Painter: Yes, I saw that, too.

White: Why is it so cheap?

Jordahl: I think because it’s pretty well canned. They can get a low-grade person to learn the drill and run them through the tricks. Get enough people together, they schedule it far enough in advance. We got here, Cedar Rapids, August 18th, so that people can clear their schedules. They get good attendance.

Slockett: It seems like we should make sure Ann attends who teaches our courses.

Jordahl: I’m going.

Slockett: The people in Information Services. It sounds like a lot.

Painter: All right. Thank you. It looks to me as if, as far as our next meeting date and time, that I believe that the Tuesday in August that would logically correspond to what we want to do possibly is the 22nd. I don’t know what your lives are like then, but that’s one option for us.

Jordahl: What about that jail discussion?

Painter: That’s a good point.

Slockett: Which Tuesday in August were you talking about?

Painter: For the regular meeting, the 22nd. Do we normally go 3rd Tuesday?

White: If you really want the jail to be a seriously discussed topic that’s almost too late.

Painter: Yes.

Jordahl: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. We need a jail meeting in July. The 11th strikes me as a likely possibility. We have a department head meeting on the 18th. Wish we could do it there. But I think the value of the elected officials butting heads has got a certain ring to it.

Painter: Does anybody have a conflict with that date, July 11th, that’s here right now? Would we devote our entire agenda to that particular topic, and if we do that, would we then forestall the next meeting for a couple months?

Carpenter: I’m not so sure what we’re going to discuss during this topic. I’m not going to butt heads. If Tom wants to spend a million dollars a year, I don’t care.

Jordahl: Well, I do.

Carpenter: Well, I’m going to have to do whatever the County wants us to do anyway. That part I don’t care. Yes, I care as a taxpayer.

Jordahl: We seem to have money.

Carpenter: What’s the point? What are we going to be able to change here?

Jordahl: Well, we just support.

Carpenter: We’ve been into this for how many months?

Jordahl: A lot.

Carpenter: We’ve had how many meetings with different groups and stuff. We’ve had how many meetings has Tom sat in with us on our Financial Committee and this is the first time that I’ve heard that he has a problem. So, I don’t know what a month down the road is going to do to change that problem.

Jordahl: Let’s ask Tom.

Carpenter: Well, he’s not asked the right questions or he isn’t seeking out any answers, because now is a poor time to be coming out with it.

Slockett: Well, the Financial Committee meetings had nothing to do with the merits of the decision. It had to do with how to proceed with financing and so forth.

Carpenter: Those meetings that we had on a Financial Consultant all rotated around a timetable. You knew what that was. As a matter of fact, you’re the one that gave us the dates for it. So, what are we going to answer in a month from now besides to kill another 30 days?

Slockett: Well, we didn’t discuss the wisdom of doing it. The question was how do we get it on the ballot and I didn’t feel it was really my role to discuss it. But I wanted to discuss it. I think it has an impact.

Carpenter: Come down and take a tour. We’ll start there.

Slockett: Yes, well…

Carpenter: Maybe that would be a good place for you.

Slockett: I didn’t say that I don’t think that the Jail doesn’t have too many people in it at certain times.

Carpenter: But this is nothing new. The things you brought up today are nothing new that’s coming up. It’s the same old crap. We’ve discussed it how many times.

Slockett: Well, one of the things is I don’t know that I’m going to be able to support the proposal as I see it coming together. That may not be a concern, but I sort of, on my part, it’s a good faith effort to try to bring up the subjects that I think need to be dealt with in order for me personally to decide what I’m…

Carpenter: I guess the thing, Tom, I don’t understand, and this is probably getting off of the agenda…

Slockett: Yes I know. We can’t discuss it without discussing it.

Carpenter: Why don’t you and I stand outside here and discuss it.

Jordahl: Yes, really. Can I watch?

Carpenter: I don’t understand what’s your question.

Painter: I’ll call Public Access.

Carpenter: It’s pay me now or pay me later and you want to pay later apparently.

Slockett: I want to pay in the best way for the future of the County.

Carpenter: Don’t build somebody else’s jails.

Jordahl: It kind of sounds like you’re wanting to have the cake and eat it, too, here Tom. You’re saying that if we’re going to build a new jail on that site, then we have to get rid of the one we’ve got. Isn’t that kind of something like that?

Slockett: Well, look, we’ve already decided not to discuss this.

Jordahl: All right then. Let’s adjourn this meeting quick.

Slockett: If we were going to discuss it, I think it would be better… I like the idea of a meeting myself. But I don’t want a meeting if people don’t want a meeting.

Carpenter: I think a lot of the issues we’re discussing here for the next meeting are going to be discussed and probably over and said and done with by then, if we wait until the middle of August, because we’re looking at a deadline.

Jordahl: That’s why I’m suggesting July.

Painter: Right. There’s been discussion. Now, I don’t know. Do we take a vote or a straw poll on whether or not people want to have that type of meeting or if people want to have debates?

Jordahl: If the agenda says, Jail Discussion with Elected Officials, by God the TV will be here.

Painter: Yes, I know. Sure.

Jordahl: Do we want to create a forum in which we present dissention among the elected officials about whether we need to build a jail or not. For those of us who think we do need to build a jail, that’s not a very good idea.

Carpenter: Oh I agree 100%.

Jordahl: You agree what?

Carpenter: Everybody needs to be on the same base. But I can’t understand where we’ve been, in a vacuum for the last year?

Jordahl: Yes.

Carpenter: That’s what I don’t understand.

Jordahl: Well, maybe starting with a tour would be a good place to go. But what are we going to do about a meeting.

Carpenter: (Inaudible).

Jordahl: Do we want to delay?

Slockett: I don’t understand what the significance of the tour is. I’m convinced that the jail is overcrowded. If there’s something else I could learn from that tour, maybe you could tell me what it would be. But I don’t need a tour to realize that the jail is overcrowded.

Carpenter: Do you realize that I have a responsibility and the Board has a responsibility for the inmates that we keep and that the County is going to pay for it one way or the other?

Jordahl: OK. We’re not going to save any money on this one way or the other. It isn’t just a fixed million either. As population continues to grow in Johnson County, the cost of housing prisoners is going to go up and up and up until we do deal with the question of the jail.

Carpenter: (Inaudible) the prices.

Slockett: Well, I’m not hearing a consensus at least in the people in this room to hold a meeting.

Jordahl: I’m not either. Am I wrong?

Carpenter: I think Tom you need to decide who you want to talk to. Don’t talk to me. Talk to somebody that you feel apparently knows better. Apparently, my indications were that you feel that I’m trying to snow the public.

Slockett: No.

Carpenter: Well, you indicated there by the elected officials that are...

Slockett: No, no, no Bob. I really sincerely meant that, that I think this is decision that is impacting the people in this county beyond any of us in the room. It’s really important to look to the long term good of the people. I’ve seen this for many years. We all talk about having a County campus and the advantages of consolidating our services and the cost-effectiveness of doing that. Many different departments, not just the Sheriff’s Department, has a need to expand at a certain point in time and we go off to a separate location. If we don’t have any resolve about expanding in what I see as a rational way…

Carpenter: Why is that, Tom? It’s because you put it in the most populated area it can go. You can’t expand without costing millions of dollars.

Slockett: Well.

Carpenter: For us to annex and the time it’s going to cost, I don’t know where you’re going to go anyway, because we looked at different sites here and there’s not room.

Slockett: Well, I’m not sure that I’m convinced that that’s been looked at thoroughly enough.

Carpenter: See who you’ve talked to then.

Slockett: Well, I don’t want you to get mad at them, as mad at them as you are at me. But I’ve talked to people.

Carpenter: I’m really concerned as an elected official, I don’t know who you’ve visited with and who you haven’t talked with, if you’ve got questions, until now.

Slockett: Well, I think many people have a lot of questions.

Carpenter: There are a lot of people… As an elected official, I think you should have… You certainly haven’t come to us.

Slockett: Well, I’m trying to come to you. I don’t know what you want from me.

Carpenter: You’re kind of late.

Painter: Well, it looks like there are potentially still a few public meetings here coming up, at which options will be reviewed. I don’t know if it’d be feasible, but it might be a very good idea to go ahead and review and raise your own options.

Slockett: Maybe you can give me some guidance. I feel like I don’t want to… I’m not an expert in this area and I don’t think that it’s appropriate for me to try to drive decisions where I’m not an expert. But what I see happening is we’re coming up to the point where I’m going to be asked for my opinion and that might matter to some people and people may be angry at me if my opinion isn’t the same as theirs. What I’m seeing is that my opinion doesn’t seem to be what it is of at least the most outspoken people in the room. I’m trying to get answers to the questions that I have and I’m not hearing them.

Carpenter: But I never got the question. I still don’t know what the question is.

White: That’s all right, because we’ve got an agenda problem. Part of the concept of this meeting is that any elected official can put any item on the agenda they want. I think it’s clear that Tom has questions and so conceptually, I think we should honor his desire to talk about it. All I was saying, in terms of the calendar was, if we waited till mid-August, whatever comes out of it, if anything, doesn’t leave much time to react to. I personally think it wouldn’t be a bad idea to do it on July 11th. I’ve got some schedule complications. By the way, I cannot attend the July 6th session. I’m certainly pretty close to dispensable in that joint work session. But I’m already committed to a day of depositions in our double homicide. So, my inclination is to say, if people are available Tuesday, July 11th at 1:30, let’s just have a meeting where we can have a discussion among elected officials about the jail. I don’t know whether we’ll convince Tom or not. I don’t worry too much about the discussion in public. I think it’s going to occur in public at some point and should.

Slockett: I don’t know if this is appropriate or what, but I’m just for Bob’s… I think Bob doesn’t understand where I’m coming from. I guess if I had to sum it up right now, I would say I think it’s premature to put it on the ballot in November. I feel strongly that we ought to pursue further using the current Jail site and figuring out ways to find the necessary space to build a cost-effective jail, on or adjacent to that site. In conjunction with the current Jail site, the current Courthouse site and the possibility of acquiring additional property adjacent to those 2. To be able to find the necessary space to build a cost effective jail for the future would be… I don’t feel that the possibilities for that have been adequately exhausted. That’s where my concern is coming. Also, I’m concerned about whether the people who are in jail need to have, that are causing the overcrowding, need to be housed in that same level of security. I know there are arguments that that’s the case. I understand the legal liability if a person who’s inebriated or caught with drugs commits a crime after being put in a less costly security facility or something. But I’m waiting for discussion on all of those subjects. Why with, either having inebriated people put in some other type of a facility or using the electronic bracelets can’t be made a more viable option than it has turned out to be. To me there is a lot to discuss, that I personally would need answers to, before I’d feel comfortable saying that it’s important… Because, not only the bond issue, but the additional staffing required is...

Carpenter: You just answered your own question. For those things that you want, the additional staffing will kill you in the long run. But I can’t get into answers. I’ve got answers for everything you’ve brought up. They’ve been discussed and looked at seriously a lot of different times.

Jordahl: Members of the public need to hear those answers again and again and again.

Carpenter: I’ve thought of that.

Jordahl: Maybe there’s a utility in having them posed by the County Auditor and having them answered adequately. I’m not sure. I think it’s a communication opportunity in a way.

Slockett: Well, I don’t know.

Carpenter: It’s a long way down the road, is what I’m saying. I’m just sorry that he has to wait for a month to try to hear that, that he couldn’t call me up and say, hey, what’s the deal on this problem.

Jordahl: Yes. I would really honestly suggest that you 2 talk soon, rather than wait for a month, whether we have a meeting or not.

Carpenter: I didn’t have any problem. There was no discussion at any of the other meetings we’ve had.

Jordahl: Yes.

Painter: Well, is there a sense that the July 11th meeting is something that people want to undertake here?

Jordahl: I think it’s kind of untimely since we’ve got this work session coming up on July 6th. It’ll be kind of like 2nd guessing that July 6th meeting, wouldn’t it?

Painter: That’s a point.

Jordahl: Tom, you’re going to be at that July 6th meeting. Couldn’t the questions be raised then?

Slockett: I don’t know if it’s more appropriate to discuss. Do you think it’s appropriate for me to go to that meeting and bring these issues up?

Jordahl: If they’re issues, we’d better hear them, like Bob said, sooner is better than later.

Carpenter: It’s a public forum isn’t it.

Jordahl: Yes. We haven’t decided to build a fence around it yet. It says review alternate forms of confinement. Review staffing requirements. Those are the questions you’re raising about the nature of incarceration there.

Slockett: I don’t know.

Carpenter: Other people can answer. It’s not coming from me, then that way…

Painter: OK. Shall we re-review the August 22nd Tuesday date for our next meeting? Does that look good for folks?

Kriz: With items number 4 and 5 from today’s agenda added on to that?

Painter: Yes, and anything else. We’ll do the usual tentative agenda, send out, and give you a lot of time to add whatever items you’d like to see us discuss on that date. So, 1:30 here on Tuesday, August 22nd. All right, very good. We are adjourned.

Adjourned at 3:12 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By: Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary