Stutsman: OK, business form the Board of Supervisors. Correspondence concerning the following. The first item would be the East Central Iowa Council of Governments regarding staffing services for the Johnson County Housing Task Force Committee. We received a letter from Doug Elliot concerning fees for the staffing that they are providing to that subcommittee. Carol, you are the one who has been following that subcommittee, so if you want to explain what is going on here.

Thompson: This is a 2 page letter and the 2nd page is in front, so if you are looking for the second page, it is right there. We got a letter from Doug Elliot telling us that for the 1st year of our Housing Task Force, they have been providing both staffing and grants administration free. Apparently, they have had some changes in their funding this year which require them to seek additional revenue. He is telling us in his letter that for the staffing services, they estimate that it costs them about $3,000 a year. This would be the time that it takes for their staff to prepare the budget, send it out, do the minutes, look up information for the committee that is more than what they would do as a regular part of their operation. In the Housing Task Force meeting last Thursday, Linda Severson from JCCOG offered that they would take on this task. That would save the Board the payment of the $3,000 to ECICOG. On the 2nd page, though, he talks about the administering of the grants. You remember we got a grant for $50,000 last year and we will have another grant for $50,000 this year because I was going to tell you under reports that that has been approved. So, we have $100,000 worth of grants and he is saying that their program administration costs about $9,000 which isn’t unreasonable based on what grants administration people usually charge. He is recommending that we pay $3,200, I should point out first that we get, we think, about $1,266 of revenue when participants in the program pay a fee for some of the things that they get. So you subtract that, that leaves an amount of $7,734 and he is recommending that we pay $3,200 and ECICOG will put in $4,500 as an in kind commitment. So what needs to go on the future Board agenda is the amount of $3,200 which we would pay for grants administration for the Federal Home Loan Bank Grant that we have.

Stutsman: Now I guess I am kind of confused. He said that part of their charge up there was to write the grants then and now once we get the grant then he wants us to pay for the administration of it?

Thompson: Yes. There is quite a bit of work involved because people have to make an application and then someone has to determine whether they are eligible and then work with them as they go through their building project. For example, if they get an estimate and the work doesn’t come in on target or things like that. Because there is a 50% match involved, the staff person has to work with the applicant to work out how much they are going to pay and how much we are going to pay which is limited to $5,000 on our part. They have incurred a lot of hours with our applicants.

Stutsman: Right. So there would not be a charge for this staff fee because that Linda would be taking them. So, the $3,000 is off the table.

Thompson: Right.

Stutsman: Carol, we did have an increase in fees from ECICOG for membership. Do you know what that increase is?

Thompson: I would have to double check. I just don’t remember off the top of my head.

Jordahl: Mostly staff salaries wasn’t it?

Peters: That was one of the things they were addressing.

Thompson: I put this on the agenda today to alert the Board that this was in the wind. I know that we don’t like to amend our budget and I thought maybe for a future agenda, we could put Doug Elliot on and have him come in and talk to us about it.

Stutsman: I seems that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul in this case. These are all tax dollars. I guess I would want to know how much additional fee we are paying to ECICOG over last year. I don’t know, monitoring these grants?

Thompson: It is something that we would have to do with our own staff.

Stutsman: Right, and that is what I am wondering.

Jordahl: Its the providing the staffing function that he refers to is like he says we have been doing it. OK, that was sort of voluntary on their part, wasn’t it? We didn’t contract with them to do it but we are being asked to pay for it.

Thompson: We are being asked to pay for the 2nd year.

Jordahl: We are not being asked to pay for what has happened. But still again, there was a recognition on his part as director that his staff was doing this and this was their budget.

Stutsman: This was part of the services that we contract with them when we pay ECICOG.

Jordahl: So when we have our contribution to ECICOG, if there were going to be other charges like this, that should have been mentioned at budget time so that we could plan for it. Our response probably could be, well, we would be happy to include this in our 2002 budget.

Stutsman: I guess I agree with Jonathan. I am bothered that now that we have the grant and everything has been… I don’t now if I would have been supportive with going ahead with the grant if I had known that we were going to have another $3,200 in grant administration cost. I guess I would have wanted to know that information up front to consider it in the whole package. As the situation in some grants, you have to weigh is the benefit worth the cost. I guess I have to ask you too, Carol, are we getting enough benefit from this particular grant to justify the cost.

Thompson: We discussed this in our meeting and the Assessor points out that there is some return to the County in terms of stabilizing home value so that we maintain the tax base.

Jordahl: Well, we are not saying it isn’t a worth while project to do. But the question is, is this request form ECICOG to pay for something that they knew they were doing and didn’t ask for payment for when we were considering what we were paying for.

Stutsman: I guess I do want to know if this is a worth while project. Because we were asked to basically pay for it.

Lehman: I want to ask Carol if we have had applicants. One time you reported the number of applicants we have had for this grant.

Thompson: We can have 10 applicants in the 1st year and it is not over yet, it goes to October. We have had 6 applicants so far. So we are still looking for applicants for that and then we have another opening for 10 more applicants for next year.

Lehman: But the fee they are asking for is regardless… You didn’t have any applicants, it is still an overhead that they are trying to pass on to us.

Thompson: Right.

Lehman: In the long run, the more applicants that we have, the better off we would be because it would divide the cost amongst more applicants and possibly return in tax assessments.

Thompson: This particular grant does not allow us to ask for administrative costs in the grant. We have, from time to time, applied for grants that would have, but we have always been denied. I think that they are not seeing anyway to recoup any of the investment that they are making in our Housing Task Force.

Duffy: Carol, did this go through the State Department of Economic Development? I think it probably did.

Thompson: Yes.

Duffy: And it is a lot easier if they give their blessing then they work through the COGS to get the grant. You can side step them if you want to ask for a grant directly from the Department of Economic Development. But your chances of getting it is a lot more if you go through the COGS.

Stutsman: Well, I’m no longer on the East Central Iowa Council of Government Board. But, I know when I was on the Board, they went through a strategic planning process and part of that process was to generate more revenue.

Thompson: I’m sure that’s where this comes from. But, the reason I think we should take a little time to think about it is that, it may be that the new Budget Coordinator, as part of the grant writing part, could work with their staff and take on the administration part. If we could do that within a few months, I think they probably wouldn’t expect us to pay anything for their services, up till we took it over.

Jordahl: The administrations part term that you are using there, includes preparing a distributing meeting agendas, notices, taking in or preparing meeting minutes.

Thompson: Jonathan, no that’s the part that Linda Severson took over. Look on the 2nd page. Is the map there?

Jordahl: I’m having trouble locating this. There it is. There, I got it.

Stutsman: So, the $3,000 is off the table. Linda Severson from JCCOG said she would agree to do that. What they’re asking for now is just administration of this grant.

Thompson: They’re willing to write the grant and do that part for us. They just want us to reimburse them for the administration.

Stutsman: It is a job to administer these grants, as Danielle Essing, who works out of the County Attorney can attest. She does the administration for the Juvenile Justice Policy Grant. Pat, don’t get any ideas about joining.

Thompson: I think this one is especially challenging because you are working with people who aren’t skilled or experienced at working with government programs. It saves a lot of explaining to do.

Jordahl: Why is this not a job for the Auditor or Treasurers office here in this building.  We’re keeping track of money.

Thompson: No, we’re keeping track of eligibility. We’re taking in applications. We’re reviewing them to see if they’re eligible. Then, working with people as they remodel their homes. So, it’s talking to contractors, working on prices for windows. Does the price meet the estimate? It’s that kind of negotiation that’s involved in the project administration.

Stutsman: The bottom line is that this may be a bargain, but the bottom line is that this may be a bargain. $3,200 may be a bargain, but I guess I’m having a hard time with all of a sudden, the rules of the game being changed midstream. We really didn’t plan on or take this into account when we were approving or going ahead with this.

Jordahl: Yes. Let me ask this question real plainly. When should this question have been asked? Should it have been asked when we were applying for the grant? Should it have been asked when ECICOG was encouraging us to apply for the grant? Should it have been asked when we received the grant? I don’t so much want to point a finger of blame exactly, as to point out that somebody knew that this cost was going to exist and didn’t address the question at the time.

Thompson: Well, we knew at the beginning that the cost would be in there and would not be reimbursed in the grant. ECICOG said they were willing to assume that. That was last year. Now, a new grant is coming. So, if you look at their time frame, I don’t think this is unreasonable. It just doesn’t fit with our budget.

Stutsman: But, I would have liked to have had this information when we were making the decision whether to apply for that 2nd grant.

Thompson: So, we should invite Doug in to talk with us.

Jordahl: Yes.

Duffy: Carol, I’d like to ask a question? The grant in areas of housing, housing development, does that mean fixing up? Say you have a house that needs a lot work fixing up. I know there are grants for that.

Thompson: Yes, and the grant we chose to apply for was for owner occupied housing for moderate low income people.

Duffy: On a negative side of that, when that house is fixed up, here comes the Assessor. They’re going to pay the taxes.

Stutsman: Sure.

Thompson: That’s good for the County. Although the Assessor says it usually doesn’t change it significantly. We’re only doing $10,000 maximum of repairs.

Duffy: I never seen an Assessor access anything down or stand still. But, I just happen to know that when somebody asked about (inaudible) and it’s true.

Stutsman: All right.

Stutsman: Let’s move on then to David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinator for Iowa City, regarding the public hearing on the Sycamore and 1st Avenue urban renewal plan. This is also a letter, it’s in our packet. I’m sure that all of you are well aware that the City has considered a TIF for the Sycamore Mall First Avenue urban renewal area. This is a letter informing the Board, as required by the Iowa Code that this is coming up and giving us an opportunity to attend, first of all, an informational meeting, and then if we want to respond to the proposal. I guess the first thing I would want to know is who, or if the Board is interested in sending somebody to this particular meeting. Then, if we want to, we have to go into the meeting, respond to their proposal. Or, if we feel that it is just A-OK and don’t have any interest in responding to it.

Jordahl: Well, and by the way.

Duffy: We should have the interest. I’d say to send somebody, either Jonathan or Mike or whoever wants to go.

Jordahl: Or you.

Stutsman: Who would like to go then?

Jordahl: Oh yes. With Mike and I working on the Fringe Area Agreement with Iowa City. It’s kind of in the realm of Economic Development. Do you want to handle this one?

Lehman: Yes.

Stutsman: OK. So, Mike, you will attend that meeting.

Thompson: Are we going to prepare some comments ahead of time, like a letter or something?

Stutsman: Well, if I remember, if I felt it was kind confusing, I read it a couple of time. So, it is my understanding that you go to the meeting, and Pat maybe you can help me with this process. We go to the meeting, get information, then we have an opportunity to respond.

County Attorney J. Patrick White: That will be a public hearing.

Stutsman: I think at that time we may want to respond. So, maybe it would make more sense for Mike to go and then report back to the Board and then we can design if we want to respond. Does that make sense Pat?

White: Well, yes, it makes sense. It’s not too early to send comments with Mike if you have comments. One of the purposes of the pre-public hearing consultation is to get your inputs and stores a potential impact on tax revenues to you. But, strictly your discretion is to whether and when you want to provide any comments.

Stutsman: Well, I guess I need more information as far as the length of time of this particular TIF. What kind of impact it would have on the County as far as tax dollars?

Lehman: You’ll have to visit with the County Assessor Jerry Musser and give him a little idea what the history has been there and how the effect might have on…

Jordahl: It says as the enclosed copy of the urban renewal plan states, I assume there is more detail available on this for review. Might want to visit with Iowa City beforehand. They may have something more on the way of maps or something.

Lehman: It looks like the consultation is July 24th, 10 o’clock.

Jordahl: Coming right up on Monday.

Lehman: The hearing is August 15th.

White: You actually have an interest in addition to being a taxing body, in that you’re a property owner within the area under consideration as a property owner and a tenant.

Stutsman: We have an investment.

White: What happens out there is going to be of considerable interest to you.

Stutsman: Very good point. We need to formerly respond by, was it July 31st?

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: Oh boy.

Jordahl: So how does that work in terms of a conflict of interest Pat? We’re a government, we own land. What are we?

White: Both.

Stutsman: Well, we do not meet in a session before the 31st. Well, what we could do, I don’t know if the Board would be interested in, is expand our work session on the 8th to include response to this particular issue, too. Mike would have gone to the meeting by then. He might be able to answer our questions. Would Board Members be interested in doing that?

Jordahl: You mean have a verbal response on the 8th?

Stutsman: Well, maybe just give our feedback or have a discussion so that we can draft a formal response that has to be there by the 31st.

Jordahl: It’s July 31st.

Stutsman: Right.

Thompson: I think that’s a good idea. Is it reasonable to discuss the cumulative effect of all of these on the County?

White: Sure.

Thompson: Iowa City looks at their financial impact, but we have to look at North Liberty and Coralville and all the other TIF’s that are being approved and that’s a significant impact on us.

Stutsman: Well, it’s cumulative. That’s for sure.

Jordahl: You said work session on the 8th. You mean the 26th, right?

Stutsman: I meant the 26th at 8:00 in the morning.

Jordahl: Yes I think adding this to the agenda for the 26th would be a reasonable and appropriate thing to do.

Stutsman: All right. Why don’t we do that, then. Maybe we could get some information on the tax impact of the TIF’s that are already in place.

Jordahl: We’re going to need some help from the Auditor or Treasurer on this.

Stutsman: Carol, can you see if the Assessor or whoever can get that information for us? Then, any information, Mike, you can get from the meeting on the 24th.

Lehman: 24th.

Stutsman: 24th.

Jordahl: Do we need information specific to our property on Mall Drive?

Stutsman: Would that be included in that?

White: Yes.

Stutsman: Is it? OK.

White: At least in the tentative outline of the area.

Board of Supervisors Administrative Assistant Carol Peters: Did the complete packet of the letter… is circulating?

Stutsman: OK.

White: As is Eastdale.

Stutsman: OK. The plot thickens.

Thompson: Could we ask to have ours deducted from the plan?

White: Sure.

Thompson: Might be something to look at.

White: I don’t know that it makes any difference. You’re not going to pay taxes anyway.

Stutsman: Yes.

Jordahl: But maybe as a governmental entity owning property in the area we could request that we be allowed to participate in the fruits of the TIF in some way to develop our own property.

White: For infrastructure costs.

Jordahl: That’s right. Infrastructure, like our buildings that we need to build out there. It would be infrastructure, wouldn’t it?

White: No. Streets, water, sewer.

Lehman: Sewer and water.

Stutsman: OK.

Jordahl: Parking lots.

Stutsman: All right. So, if we’re OK with that why don’t we… Are there any other things that we should tentatively consider before that work session?

Thompson: Can’t think of anything.

Lehman: Send me a note if you think of something else, something you might want to ask or pick up on.

Stutsman: All right. Anything. Very good. Thanks for doing that Mike.

Stutsman: OK. Minutes Received. We have minutes from the Johnson County Council of Governments Urbanized Area Policy Board for May 24, 2000, and also minutes from the Senior Center Commission for June 20, 2000. Reports and Inquiries. We haven’t done this for a number of weeks. Charlie, do you have anything this morning?

Duffy: Just the recent ones. Last week we didn’t get them in. That’s water over the dam, but OK. We had a meeting at the Jail last Tuesday, I think it was, to find a replacement for Jim McGinley, our Emergency Management Director. Some people call it Civil Defense. We have a committee set up for it and they advertised for this position and got about 30 applicants and they are all good and we cut them down to about 3.

Stutsman: OK.

Duffy: So, we’re going to meet next Monday evening at the same time, 5:30 and by then I think we might know just a little bit. Yesterday afternoon, Pat White, Mike, myself, Tom Hansen, there was 2 folks from the State, it was one of those Feds we met about the buyout at Izaak Walton League, down in that area for people that would like to move off the flood plain. It’s quite complicated.

Jordahl: Is there more money?

Duffy: Yes there’s more money. So, the big thing was, it wouldn’t have been so complicated going back a year and a half ago if the homeowners down there own the property that they build on. But, most of them have a 99 year lease so that makes it a little more complicated. But, we’re going to meet again, what was the date we were going to meet again Pat, do you remember?

White: I don’t. I’m not sure that we set a date for another meeting. Jonathan, the original application and budget envision for properties and to date only 3 occupied residences have been acquired the 4th that was originally envisioned, didn’t choose to participate. Another owner of the building on leased land has been identified who would like to participate. Quite some time ago, Tom requested authority to amend the budget and plan to deal with that 4th owner who wasn’t in the original plan and that’s the primary thing under discussion now. It’s going to be a tight fit, but because one of the original 4 didn’t participate, it does appear that there are funds to substitute the one who has appeared and who is interested. There are also some longer range questions that we started to touch on a couple of weeks ago in a discussion with you. At some point we hope to get on your agenda to have a pretty wide ranging discussion about future programs, use of the land, condition of properties in the area.

Duffy: Road problem maybe.

White: One of the things, at the risk of opening that up prematurely at your Department Heads Meeting on Tuesday, under the discussion of grants mentioned was made a Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program and it is true, the County has not participated in that, with one exception. I’m not sure any longer how many years ago it has been. Charlie had a question this morning about Frytown. The County did apply for, receive funding for and administer a Housing and Community Development Program in Frytown many years ago that dealt with sewers and streets. It’s not impossible that this particular location might lend itself to a Housing and Community Development Program if we were willing to commit to staffing to apply and carry it through. Yes, that’s premature. That’s a different day’s much longer discussion.

Jordahl: Are you talking about the additional funds application for the Community Development Block Grant money? There was some talk about unspent funds from some areas that you could apply for in some kind of statewide pool.

White: Well, that possibility exists for a variety of programs. Housing and Community Development is one, but no, I’m saying, if the County identified a Housing and Community Development Program that it felt would improve quality of life and serve low and moderate income, streets, infrastructure, we’ve done it once before in the history of County government. There’d be no reason we couldn’t do it again if we had identified a part of unincorporated Johnson County where we could positively impact quality of life by streets or sewer or water. All I’m suggesting is that particular location, where we’ve now acquired land as part of a flood mitigation program, has a variety of other issues that touch on traditional housing and community development goals. Again, my recommendation has been at some point, August, September, October, we need to pull together discussion with you about issues that need long-term policy guidance from you. What, if any, commitment does the County want to make to the land we’ve acquired, to land near where we’ve acquired, to existing residences that have a host of problems.

Stutsman: OK. Charlie, anything else under reports?

Duffy: That’s enough. Thank you Sally.

Stutsman: Carol, do you have anything this morning?

Thompson: Well, the Housing Task Force, the good news was that we got the grant and it was quite competitive this year, so we were lucky to get that. We work in partnership with the Hills Bank on that one and the grant comes from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines.

Stutsman: How much was the total of the grant?

Thompson: The grant is $50,000, which can be for 10 applicants, $5,000 from us and $5,000 from the applicant for owner occupied housing rehab. We’re taking applications now. The application is on our web site and also can be attained from this office. On Friday I visited the new Juvenile Court Office. It looks really nice. Some of the painting wasn’t done when they moved and Brandon was doing it himself, which I thought was really nice. He’s very interested in having a nice place for his staff.

White: He’s had a pretty stressful month over the move.

Thompson: He has. But, he’s getting through it. Yesterday, the Juvenile Justice Task Force met and we talked about sanctions programs for juveniles and got a tour of the ace facility. One of the members asked for a flow chart of how programs work for kids and so we’re going to try to create that for next month and we’ll share it with the Board. Space Needs met last week and we have our meeting scheduled on August 8th, a joint work session with the Board to air our plan or our recommendations. This week the Senior Center Commission met and they always have such a nice list of things, activities that are planned. I always want to read them, but I know that takes up too much of our time. But, they’re going to prepare one so that we can put it on, so that Andy can show it and also put it on our web site. So, that’ll be nice. The report on the parking facility is we have about $67,000 of the $120,000 that the Commission committed themselves to raising. So, that’s my report.

Stutsman: Very good. Thank you. Jonathan, anything this morning?

Jordahl: Well, I went to JCCOG yesterday, along with Mike, Johnson County Council of Governments Meeting. There was some discussion there of the Human Services Countywide evaluation. Discussion began to revolve around the needs of children in particular. (Inaudible) was there from 4-C’s and we talked about all these different approaches to funding. But, it seemed like the question becomes a very large one of how do we get the schools to reflect the needs of society, with some recognition that from age 0-18 and from 7 in the morning until 5:30 at night we got everybody in society relates the juvenile crime questions. So, I tried to raise that large question and the best answer that was given was by Jim Bailey, Associate Superintendent of the schools in Iowa City, concerning the grant that Hills or that Iowa City Schools, I think, have received on behalf on Hills, for $192,000 to continue to develop the before and after family wide integration programming that they have down there at Hills. It’s kind of a pilot program or model for what the School District may become involved in more district wide I think. There was an addition to the arterial streets plan for the Mormon Trek Boulevard extension, which was less specific than the extension of Oakdale Boulevard has been. Remember when we had discussions on Oakdale Boulevard there was all this input from the public about how, well, gee, you’re taking my property rights away if I can’t build where that road is. Jeff Davidson explained, well, as soon as somebody wants to build there we’ll come out and design that section of road and you’ll know exactly where it’s going to be and we’ve had people do that. Actually some construction has taken place. A person went to designing that. Well, I raised the question at the meeting of why it was we weren’t being more specific since we’ve go applications for building going on there right now. Actually voted against the amendment to the plan. But, I was in a significant enough minority to have me not matter. But, I think that that question is going to wind up being resolved pretty shortly with the application to rezoning that we have down there that are going to have to incorporate the question of what about access to development and also with the discussions that are ongoing with regard to the Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement that I understand is being forwarded to the respective zoning commissions for their consideration. But, I think that we need to incorporate the question of where we know the arterial streets are going to go into documents like the Fringe Area Agreements, because it has such a large impact. If the road is going to go right by somewhere, you are going want to know that before you build something on your property that is going to be torn down later. Also, I wanted to mention the Henry Herwig passed around something tonight at 5:00 in West Liberty, there is going to be a presentation on the use of some of the waste tire kinds of stuff that we have been collecting here, into roofing tiles. Speaking of home repair, I need to do a roof on my house and I am wondering, how heavy are these things if they are made out of rubber, maybe they are not as heavy as the ceramic ones. 5:00, I am not sure where exactly that is at. There was a picture of the train station there, so maybe that is where it is at.

Stutsman: Oh, at the depot.

Lehman: Maybe at their location right as your come into North Liberty, the old Walnut Grove Feed Plant, that is where their operation is.

Jordahl: There is a toll free number anyway to call if you are interested in this, its 1-800-308-3200. The cigarette and beer meeting scheduled August 7th, asked Carol about that.

Stutsman: That work session?

Jordahl: August 7th at 9:00, Pat is that going to work for you? I did not bring this up at the JCCOG meeting despite the fact that it was sort of in the context of that Human Services report. I recall we were saying we were going to invite Iowa City, Coralville, other relevant people to discuss this, maybe have it on the agenda of the Iowa City Community School District and so forth, Joint Meeting and then maybe subsequently at a meeting with the small towns. I was wondering if we had the small towns meeting scheduled or when the next one could be expected to be. Don’t we traditionally have that one in the fall?

Peters: The next small cities is October 16th at 6:00.

Jordahl: October 16th at 6:00, there it is, thank you. I am wondering if we want to inform any or all these entities about our meeting on the 7th, or if we want a work session without any of those folks and kind of get our own heads together about it. That is an inquiry.

Stutsman: I would prefer the latter. That is my feeling about it.

Jordahl: OK. I guess I will part with that.

Stutsman: Mike, have anything?

Lehman: I guess back on the 11th, the Ag Chamber of Commerce I reported on our Supervisors report, just kind of the dull stuff about the Road Management Plan, the Road Management Calcium Chloride, how that would change a little bit. Some people are used to the AR zoning building code, we had discussion about that. They weren’t participants in some of our meetings so they had some questions on that how it might effect some of the rural areas. The past Friday, I attended the Iowa City Area Development, they are in the process of looking for a replacement for Marty Kelly who has served around 10 years. They had a large field to pick from there, so they are going to be narrowing that down for an individual to help direct the ICAD to encourage development in industry in Iowa City, North Liberty, Coralville area. Also that would involve us, Marty would help recruit anything in the area, we would encourage economic development too. I guess everything else has pretty well partaken with the rest of the members of the Board. So I guess that is all I have to report on.

Stutsman: Where are they at with Rudi’s Bakery?

Lehman: There are going to have a ground breaking here before too long. I was a little confused that they were looking for investors in the building, I thought that was all lined up.

Stutsman: Oh.

Lehman: They are going to have a ground breaking ceremony, I don’t have a specific date on it here.

Jordahl: We ought to be invited to that.

Lehman: Well I thought maybe something would come across our memo lines here. We have to bring our own shovel.

Jordahl: You know, I have one from when they made the Law School.

Lehman: Are they still looking for it?

Jordahl: I got it from Rozanne’s house, it is a long story.

Stutsman: Oh, alright. Anything else Mike?

Lehman: No.

Stutsman: OK, I have a couple of things. First of all, I attended the 6th Judicial Board Meeting yesterday afternoon. A couple things from that meeting, (inaudible) briefly attended the meeting, he was at another meeting in another room there, so he did come in and address the group for just a couple of minutes. The first opportunity I had to meet him and to listen to him. A couple things that he talked about was the concerns that they are facing in the corrections system. One of them is the situation where people’s term expires and they no longer can keep them in prison and yet, they just go out in the community, and these people are not good prospects for moving back into the community. How do you address that? On the one side, you know these people have met their terms of being incarcerated and yet, they are certainly not ready to go back on to the street again. The other issue he talked about, and he outlined briefly just a plan of working with Department of Human Services and with communities, is the number of people they are seeing in prison that obviously have mental health issues. He sees this as a real concern and something that needs to be addressed. So, it was encouraging to hear him talking about these issues and how we can address them. After he left and after the meeting, I was talking to Gary Hinsman, who is the head of 6th Judicial District, and he was talking about how much he appreciates Kip and the job he is doing. That he is probably, by far, one of the better individuals who has headed corrections in the State of Iowa. So I think we are fortunate to have him in place. The other thing that we did as a policy change for the 6th Judicial District that the Board might be interested in is that the Board, by majority vote, not unanimous, you and I are on a rebel track, Jonathan, voted to allow Parole Officers to carry firearms. The reasoning behind this is that they are seeing a much more difficult individual to work with in parole as far as these people coming back to the community. There has been an increasing request by these parole officers to have the authority to carry firearms. I did not vote for it, it is a concern for me, it is a drastic change and it seems like it just changes the whole focus of what community corrections is all about. But anyway, the majority of the Board felt that this is needed so they did authorize that change in policy.

Jordahl: I have an inquiry about that.

Stutsman: OK.

Jordahl: Was there discussion of the question of whether people who you needed to defend yourself against with a gun should actually be coming back to the community?

Stutsman: Well, and that is the whole issue. They would fully agree that these people should not be back in the community. But, this is what is happening. They are being released to the community.

Jordahl: Why?

Stutsman: I think mainly overcrowding. They have served their term and so they are released back to the community. The parole officers feel that they are in situations that are totally different than situations that they were facing even 5 years ago. Not only with the person themselves that they are asked to parole, but also the environment that these people are living in. They are going into neighborhoods that are a lot more dangerous than they ever used to be, and they feel that they just need the additional protection.

Jordahl: Isn’t parole a matter of you haven’t finished your sentence, but you are temporarily…

Thompson: You are required to do a certain amount and then you are eligible for parole.

Jordahl: Yes, you are eligible to get out and if you behave yourself, you can stay out. But if you don’t behave yourself, you go back, so you are sort of still under custody in some way. I guess I am suggesting, if they are that dangerous, some decisions… Let me ask it another way. Are mandatory drug sentences driving the crowding that causes this release?

Stutsman: I don’t know. I think it is probably all of the above. I think it is all probably a reflection of the tough on crime. The fact that we have a number of new prisons, but I don’t think that we can really afford to keep building prisons for the needs.

Jordahl: Tough on crime, but not the bottom crime.

Thompson: I had an inquiry too. Are these people now going to go to the Police Academy to get training?

Stutsman: Yes.

Jordahl: Nope, just going to give them guns.

Stutsman: Part of the concern I had is that they talked about 2 officers today, I hope I am using the right terminology that would be doing it. By opening this policy, I be we are going to have a lot more and Gary said yes, by next year, we will have 6 that are carrying guns. And then somebody else pointed out that this is not new. Parole officers did used to carry guns.

Jordahl: So did the cowboys and the ranchers and the Indians.

Stutsman: I certainly respect the difficult and dangerous situations these people are being asked to go into, but by they same token, it is unfortunate that this is needed. But anyway, that is the change that we adopted yesterday. The other thing I wanted to talk about was the Fair. The Fair is coming up next week. The County does have a booth and we need people to work in that booth. We have had pretty good response and one of the things that has been kind of neat is that some of the members from the Health Board and the Conservation Board are going to help staff the booth which I think is real good. But we do need additional County people, I don’t know if any Board members have signed up, but you might look at that schedule, Holly has that schedule she is passing around and sign up to participate. I think it is really going to be a fun booth this year. I hope Board members will stop by as well as people from the community and find out what is going on in County Government. I think we are going to take this map out there, it seems like there is always a lot of interest in Road Counts and things in the County. So we are going to take that out there as well as some of the visuals we had at our public meeting on the Jail. Those will be a part of the booth as well as a wheel for, what is the proper term?

Jordahl: Fortune.

Stutsman: Fortune, thank you very much. For people to answer questions and then be eligible for some donated prizes and things.

Jordahl: Have we planned the weather?

Stutsman: I sure have been working on it. I hope it works. This has been the perfect week this week. Lets hope it holds, it is not as warm as it was last week. But we do have plenty of water and fans available.

Thompson: University letter?

Stutsman: Yes. I was going to do that under other. Anything else from reports or inquires.

Stutsman: Under other, I would like to read the letter that the Board received from Doug True from the University of Iowa. This letter came in to the Board office after the agenda was set for the Board meeting or else we would have had it on the agenda. But I would like to take it up under other. With that, I will read the letter and this is to Sally Stutsman, Chair of Johnson County Board Of Supervisors from Doug True and subject regarding the Johnson County Jail and it was dated July 19th, 2000. "I was asked by Norm Osland to provide some background on the availability of the University of Iowa property for expansion of the County Jail. Over the last 2 years, there has been discussions on the subject with County Attorney Pat White and more recently with Pete Hayek who headed the County Commission on the subject of jail expansion. The University has substantial needs for expansion of academic programs and parking in the area south of Burlington Street. The University of Iowa campus plan reflects this. Moreover, during the last 2 years, the need for space by the University has grown making us even more acutely aware of the need for adjacent property. The University’s long term growth potential has been a subject of substantial interest by the Board of Regents. At this time, and under present circumstances, I do not envision the University being in a position to transfer additional land to the County for jail expansion. The accurate, yet somehow casual remark by me quoted in the committee report to the Board of Supervisors is probably quite apt. The University of Iowa is in more of a buying mode than a selling mode. Indeed, should the County construct and expand a jail at another site, the University of Iowa would be interested in discussing the future of the current jail site including possible reacquisition of the land by the University of Iowa. I hope this is responsive to your request." Courtesy copies to Pat White, Norm Osland, Mike Finnigan, and Dwayne DeRay.

Duffy: Sally?

Stutsman: This letter is in response to constant inquiries about the opportunity to work with the University to acquire more additional land around the current jail site.

Duffy: Sally as far as I am concerned, that jail is not an old jail and our space needs, we could use a (inaudible) so don’t think I would be interested in selling to the University.

Stutsman: Well, we can’t discuss this, but I just wanted this to be part of…

Duffy: Something that everybody would be included in on. It seems strange to me to run around the city again and the County buy more space.

Stutsman: Alright, anything else under other? Any inquiries or reports from the public?

Welsh: On Monday afternoon at 1:00 in Cedar Rapids at the Corrections Center, there will be a meeting to discuss with the Head of the Department of Human Services an action plan. The Department of Human Services is looking for an action plan which will drastically change the way that Department operates and delivers its Human Services. The director, Jessie Rasmussen is scheduled to be there, and we sure encourage people, you and other folks to attend that meeting that is 1:00 to 3:30. The other, Charlie mentioned during the discussion of your report from the County Auditor about the Fiscal Information. It might be helpful to have some extra copies of those report that the press and interested citizens could look at. Because at least if I was a reporter, I would want to give that information to the public. I think Charlie is right, that is important information. And I do appreciate (inaudible) looking at that accrual interest (inaudible). It is my understanding that what is accrued last year, shows as a part of the cash expenditures this year. So what was accrued last Fiscal Year is a part of your cash expenditures for this year and usually, my guess is if you do that tracking, I sort of gather that things usually have balanced out. Just for what it is worth, you might want to consider asking Dan to have some extra copies of those each month to give to the press and interested citizens.

Stutsman: OK, anything else? If not, we are adjourned.

Adjourned at 11:34 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary