Chairperson Painter called the Johnson County Elected Officials Meeting to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:35 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, and Sally Stutsman; Carol Thompson was present by speakerphone; and County Treasurer Tom Kriz. Staff present were: Board of Supervisors Administrative Assistant Carol Peters, Board of Supervisors Deputy Administrative Assistant Jeffrey Horne, and Auditor’s Office Recording Secretary Casie Parkins.

County Recorder Kim Painter: Reports and Inquiries from Elected Officials. We’ll start with Charlie.

Duffy: We’ve started evaluations of department heads again. We had a 2 1/2 hour meeting this morning. Things are looking pretty good. Really, the people around the County are all talking about the Jail. It is going to be on the ballot. That’s all.

Painter: Sally.

Stutsman: I don’t have anything to report. The Board has been busy working on the Jail issue and Space Needs. That’s all for right now.

Painter: I was at the Recorder’s Summer School Session, sponsored by the Iowa State Association of Counties last week. We spent a lot of our time focusing on the e-commerce legislation that was passed and some of the committees that have been formed to work with offices throughout the State in preparing to become ready to accommodate e-commerce. That was an interesting session. That’s most of what I have to report as well. Jonathan.

Jordahl: In the e-world on Friday, myself, I had the opportunity to attend a training on Microsoft Office. It was all day on Friday. I’ve got oodles of notes and I think probably the best way to deal with that is to digest them a little bit. You don’t want to read all of the notes. There was some really fun points in there that a person wouldn’t discover any other way. It was excellent training. I think it’s something the County might want to consider actually bringing and having a number of staff do. If you want to develop a few key staff in your department that are already are somewhat sufficient and you want to get something where you’ve really got some fine slick Excels. It’s particularly good Excel. They’re developing Advanced Excel classes (inaudible) by Fred Prior Seminars Career Track. It’s only $60 for 6 hours and really good. Also some books that I picked up that are really good aids that I will be sharing with Information Services and maybe we’ll bring some of this stuff on home.

Painter: Mike?

Lehman: Everything I’ve worked with has been public with the other elected officials. I don’t believe I have anything to add that they’re not aware of.

Painter: Tom?

County Treasurer Tom Kriz: As we get into tax season, we are going to be open on September 29th, which will be the last tax paying day, and we’ll be open until midnight. That happens to be a Friday, so the last day of the month actually falls on a weekend. We will, as we have done in the past, be open until midnight, taking tax payments on the 29th, which is becoming each time we do it a little more popular. The only other thing is I spent a day in Des Moines this week working over some proposed legislative changes through the DOT and tax code site. We’re going to talk about and do some lobbying for. Some centering around the situation with mobile homes and how they are taxed and the inability sometimes to collect these taxes. More and more counties now are having people just not paying their taxes and turning mobile homes over to their counties. That whole issue needs to be addressed along that lines. We’ve got some good substance and some lobbying that will be done.

Painter: Thanks Tom.

County Sheriff Bob Carpenter: I don’t have anything new.

Painter: OK Bob.

Jordahl: Good.

Painter: Pat White?

County Attorney J. Patrick White: Nothing.

Painter: Tom Slockett.

County Auditor Tom Slockett: Saturday is the statewide voter registration day proclaimed by the Governor and created by Chet Culver, the Secretary of State. I think he’s coming tomorrow morning for a news conference locally. I know the Press Citizen’s going to editorialize about it, so that’s a positive thing. He’s got over 1,000 businesses across the State that are registering voters and a lot of sponsors for the effort. Well, you can look up the locations on the web. Either on our jcauditor.com site or on the SOS site for the Secretary of State. We’re looking forward to getting some registrations.

Painter: Terrific. OK. I believe that’s everybody on the updates from elected officials. Our next agenda item is the Discussion of Final Ballot Language for the Jail. Carol Peters asked me if it would be all right for her to call Carol Thompson, who is home not feeling so well today, but who wants to participate through telephone hookup on this. That’s part of the agenda.

Stutsman: There is a couple of things that I should have mentioned here under that, so, while Carol is doing that maybe I should talk about that.

Painter: Sure.

Stutsman: One of them is the leadership training that we decided to offer for elected officials and department heads. Carol has lined that up. There will be a memo going out to all elected officials and department heads concerning their interest in participating in that. Remember, this was the leadership training through the Extension Office. It was a series of 6 training’s and they’re a couple of hours a piece. Once you sign up it’s strongly encouraged that you go through all of them. The first one is scheduled for September 13th at 1:00. The 2nd one is September 27th at 9:00, the 3rd would be October 11th at 1:00, October 25th at 9:00 and November 8th at 1:00 and November 29th at 9:00. There will be a memo going out, but I just wanted to alert people about that. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that the Board of Supervisors is planning to have visits with elected officials. We do this with department heads, just do site visits to see how things are going in your department so that the Board can have a heads up if there are any budget issues that we should be aware of. Any things that you foresee that we need to be thinking about as far as the budget. We’ve also set up a schedule with that, spaced out those meetings so that they won’t all happen at the same time. But, we just wanted to inform elected officials that those will be scheduled with the various offices. Jonathan, do you want to add anything to that? You were instrumental.

Jordahl: Well, I think it’s important. There has been a lot of concern about the way that the budget process has changed over the last few years. We have attempted to make it clearer for the public. We wound up making it difficult for department heads. The benefit now, having Jeff on board, I think, is going to be to have a process of focused communication one-by one so that there is more of a… Instead of getting in a budget presentation and saying this isn’t exactly what we expected, we’re going to be trying to work with departments as these things are develop so it will be more clear what questions there are. I think that’s going to be a good feedback process. It’s a way of trying to humanize the process I guess. Is that what you meant?

Stutsman: Yes. Anything that you wanted to add.

Jordahl: Thank you.

Carol Thompson was present by speakerphone at 1:43 p.m.

Painter: OK. We have Carol with us.

Thompson: I’m here.

Painter: Hi Carol.

Thompson: Hi.

Stutsman: Feeling better?

Thompson: Some.

Stutsman: Good.

Painter: We’ve got potential ballot language. Does everyone have a copy of the attachment that Tom Slockett sent?

Slockett: Who doesn’t have one? We’ve got some extras. Anyone else?

Lehman: Is this yes means no and no means yes?

Slockett: Not on this one. That might be a pretty good trick on this one.

Painter: Tom if you would like to go over this with us a little bit.

Slockett: The Board put this on and I’m not exactly sure why. I’m speculating that it’s because the time is short before the 24th and it’s an opportunity to discuss it.

Stutsman: You’re exactly right, Tom. We were trying to schedule a time when the Board would have an opportunity to discuss this before we put it on for formal action on the 24th and thought, maybe this would be a good idea if we just talked about it during the Elected Officials Meeting. Then we could have input from elected officials as far as the ballot language, too. That’s why we thought it would be good to combine both of them at once.

Slockett: I know Pat White has some views on this. Maybe he’d like to discuss it. He’s been involved more in the space needs than I have. If you don’t want to talk about it, that’s fine. Tony is here as well. It would be great to have him talk. But, essentially, 2 figures have to be set: the project total, and the amount to be borrowed. The thing that complicates that is there is a desire on the part of some to not borrow some of the funds, using existing funds so that the total amount of the bond issue that is placed before the voters can be brought to a lower level. Thereby showing the public that the Board is working in every way it can to keep the costs down. That would be on the side of identifying every available penny and to the extreme case at least of lowering it as much as possible. I would also like to bring up the other side of the coin, which is, if it passes our costs are going to go up and our resources are going to be really strained. I guess you could also argue on the other extreme that we should put the bond issue as high as is necessary to fund the whole thing so that we have the available resources we need to deal with other priorities and to find the operational funds to run the facility if it passes. That’s the way I would see the issue framed on the 2 extremes. That is what we need to talk about I think.

Robert Lea Grimm: Can I put a little input in please? Could you reword a little bit around when the final bids come to be and ask for your $20 million and earmark it as such. Then, later on, say that this is right. You might have to put another add on next year. To earmark your $20 million for a jail and your bids come in over, you’ll know what you have to do next time. You’ll have to ask for more money.

Jordahl: That’s kind of what Tom is saying. Maybe we should ask for more money rather than less now.

Grimm: Right now what he’s suggesting. It doesn’t make any difference. It’s just my input on things.

Duffy: It might come in less, too.

Grimm: Sure that’s right.

Duffy: When you submit a bid and say a building is going to cost $20 million, if people are going to build, they’re going to hug around that $20 million.

Slockett: Charlie’s been joking.

Duffy: We should have mentioned that the $20 million, to say here is a building, bid on it.

Slockett: Charlie’s been joking about putting out bids for a $20 million item, that you’re probably going to get a $20 million bid.

Jordahl: I think to be serious, though, Tom’s point of whether we’re accomplishing something by saving money is an interesting one. When we discussed this at the Space Needs Committee, I think I was on the side of loading as much money into the jail project so the bond issue wouldn’t look as bad. It wouldn’t be as big a number on the theory that people would be more apt to approve spending money if they are not spending as much. And with the idea that the Board has been planning for space needs and some of that has been the jail in a long range sense. Wouldn’t it be appropriate to take advantage of that. Tom and I talked about this last week and I think there is merit to what he is saying that you bond for the whole thing. Get it all now. That way, the other needs, which we’ve also been planning for, looking into the space needs process don’t all get ignored. The Courthouse has got its Centennial coming up here, we’re fixing the bathrooms. DHS, I’m sure, isn’t happy with the notion that we’re going to be paying for a jail for the next 10 or 15 years or whatever. There is certainly a point to be discussed there. I’d like to know what everybody thinks.

Duffy: I’ll tell you what I think. I think the most important is the jail, because the State, it really is a mandate. You’re going to have to do something. Some of these others, which I am going to vote no, we can get along without for now because there is too much on the plate. I always did think the Jail was the most important on account of we’re going to have to do something one way or the other. That’s the way I feel Jonathan. There is some other big numbers here that I don’t think I am for.

Jordahl: Take this piece of the argument that if we’re going to do something as big as the jail, we should let the public decide whether we are going to build it or not. I think I’ve heard you say that yourself.

Duffy: That’s right.

Jordahl: Why not let them decide about the whole price.

Duffy: The whole price?

Jordahl: The whole price tag.

Grimm: Including a sewer line and everything else.

Jordahl: It’s got the sewer line going most of the way to the property, but there will be some associated cost, whatever the costs are.

Duffy: I thought you meant the Jail plus all of these other things.

Jordahl: No. The other things are kind of like just treat those like a separate issue. Slice the Jail off and say, the public has to decide about the whole Jail and the bond issue and not just $15 million out of a $20 million project.

Duffy: If it’s 20, no I didn’t say that.

Jordahl: Well, I’m trying to establish what you respond to that idea.

Duffy: I just wonder if it’s going to cost $20 million.

Lehman: Well, it’s going to be competitive bidding if somebody… Their chances of getting the project, a construction company, they’re going to have to be competitive. I know what you’re saying. That’s the target they’re going to shoot at. But, I’m not going to bid $20,000 if I can build it for $19,000 because I won’t get the job. But there is some, like you’re saying, it’s going to set that benchmark there.

Slockett: One of the things that Tony pointed out is that counties are in a unique situation compared to cities and schools in that we absolutely cannot exceed the project amount. Even if we had additional costs that arose and we identified additional funds to pay for those costs, we would still be prohibited legally from spending the money on this project. It’s really important that it state adequately what our costs are going to be.

Lehman: Tony and I have talked a little bit about, if we have $1 million set aside now, is that the amount we have to use or can we project what we might have in hand by the time this is built. Do we have a clarification on that? If we’re going to say we’ll go 17 on a bond and we’re going to come up with 3, I’ve heard some discussions say you can’t say 3 if you don’t have it in hand already.

Jail Financial Consultant Tony Roetlin: My opinion, based on working with other clients is, and in speaking with attorneys that think about these particular issues all the time is that, when you put a number on the ballot, you’re just saying we’re going to borrow this piece of the total project in this manner, should the voters authorize us to do so. It’s not committing that the other pieces will be there. It’s just saying this is how we intend to finance it. This is one piece of it. Now, can you bind future boards to budget in a certain way? That’d be question a little bit out of my purview, but I’d be suspecting the answer is no.

Jordahl: If we have a $20 million bill to pay, the bills have to be paid. In that sense we bind them. If they want to pay for it by collecting pop bottles or something, whatever. Once we get the project started, then they are stuck I think. In terms of not having enough money Tom, you mentioned there needs to be another bond issue. What’s the process of getting more money if the costs run over?

Slockett: I guess you have to have another bond issue and have the voters vote on it again. Is that right Tony?

Roetlin: My understanding is that it wouldn’t necessarily have to be a bond issue, but there would have to be a question on a ballot to exceed that project amount.

Slockett: There could be a 50% vote in that case if you identified the funds or do you know?

Roetlin: I’m not sure what the threshold would be, honestly.

Jordahl: I just want to clarify the question briefly, that the thinking is not then to save this money back from our capital projects so as to have it pay more in case the costs go over. We could not use money that’s beyond the cost of the Jail, if the cost were to run over. That’s not the idea of not putting our capital projects money toward this. It’s rather to use it for some of our other capital projects needs in an ongoing basis while we’re dealing with the Jail.

Lehman: I was going to say if the ballot reads, construct, equip and furnish, you can’t come back later and say, we’re going to set aside $500,000 for furnishings. I don’t know how critical that gets if you cut back on something. What’s the legality of moving stuff around?

Slockett: It doesn’t specify how much for each. I assume you could juggle. That’s the place you would have some flexibility.

Lehman: I’m saying if you spent $20 million and you cut back and didn’t have the furnishings, can you budget for furnishings later on in your normal budget when the ballot said equip and furnish. It’s got to be a turn key type thing. It does get a little stinky.

Slockett: I think it would be in terms of the completed project you would have to end up within the budget. Then, after that was finished, obviously you could furnish it later. You could add furniture if you need to, I think.

Jordahl: It would depend on how it was defined, right? If you put out the bid and it said these are the specifications for the Jail and it includes chairs, I imagine that that would be within the bond issue.

Slockett: Otherwise there’d be some sort of time limit specified or something because obviously we have been able to add furniture or replace furniture in this building.

Jordahl: No more pencils in that building.

Lehman: It runs over and you decide, we’re over by a half million, let’s cut back on furnishings and fund that through another route.

Slockett: Obviously we’re talking about hypotheticals that are undesirable and we would hope that it wouldn’t happen. We would have to deal with it when we got there.

Lehman: I’d rather be more prepared up front and not… Hopefully do your homework and not get to that situation.

Slockett: I really think that it’s difficult to predict how many votes you would gain by having an $18 million bond issue rather than a $20 million bond issue. I would tend to think while you’d probably lose some votes, I wonder how many. Whether it would really be good to strap yourself using up all available resources in order to lower it when you can’t really predict how much of a positive impact it will have on the vote.

Jordahl: I was with Jim Leach yesterday at that Chamber of Commerce thing. He was talking about how governments prosper in various economic times. He contrasted what was happening in the late 70’s with what’s happening now and noted how difficult it is for governments to keep pace in an inflationary time. We’re not in an inflationary time now, but we’re getting ready to hang ourselves out to dry with this bond issue. On the one hand, it’s a very good time to bond because the rates are low so we win. Then in the inflationary time may be easier to pay the bond off. But on the other hand, it’s probably harder to keep up with our other obligations because the price of everything is going up. Here we are making commitments at a good time for expenditures that might have to be paid in the lean time. The issue isn’t just how do we best pass this bond issue, but what’s the best thing for the County. The obvious answer to that is we need a new jail. How do we get there?

Stutsman: I was going to say, anytime you get a bond issue, 20 years. It’s a cycle, you’re always going to be facing that problem. Good times and bad times, that’s just economic cycles.

Slockett: That might be another argument to bond more, is that the interest rates are so low right at this point in time.

White: One other factor deciding how much to bond for and the best one that in Tony’s presentation, he showed you differing years and differing repayment methods, you’d get a lower total cost, if you borrow less. If your bond issue is 17.9 instead of 20, or anything below 20, you’ll actually spend less money over time. Measured by how much you’re able to marshal now. Which is why I’ve been an advocate of marshalling as much as we can. That’s a very legitimate policy argument. I know that’s a narrower policy argument than I had hoped we would ultimately get to. Which is part of what Tom, I suspect, had in mind when he said I had some opinions. The agenda item says to decide on final language, well there’s not much to decide at this point. The only decision is, what’s the total project cost and how much are you going to borrow. There would have been lots of other appropriate things to discuss, but frankly, we don’t have time to do it. My strong preference would have been that the County have a pretty serious fiscal analysis itself about what ought we propose fiscally and what makes sense for the County. I don’t think there’s any disagreement, we need a new jail. But, the only discussion that’s going on is the $20 million jail versus the status quo. I think it shortchanged the debate partly because we ran out of time.

Stutsman: Maybe the question should be asked, should we even proceed with putting this on the ballot? Or do we need more time to have a more thorough review of the question.

Grimm: I think it should be on the ballot and ear tag it like I’ve stated. For heaven’s sakes don’t go to the bank and get a loan, or whatever you have to do. If you go and get just a little bit less than what you need… It always happens, you’re going to have to have more than what you asked for.

Jordahl: That’s sure been my experience. I agree with that.

Stutsman: Part of the reason why the Board wanted to go ahead and put it on for November was just to save the cost of a special election. Which would run what, 27,000 something like that?

Slockett: Countywide it would be probably closer to 45, 50 probably.

Jordahl: Of course that’s chicken feed in the perspective of millions, but it’s still an issue.

Stutsman: It’s a cost.

Slockett: It’s not nothing.

Kriz: As you look at that dollar amount you can care to take for every million dollars you have on there, you’re going to look at about 60,000 in interest. You can just multiply that out and see how that’s going to change that. That would be a 6% rate, but that may be on the high side. That’s yearly, so $2 million different translates into 120,000 in debt retirement vested interest.

Slockett: Another way to look at is, you spend approximately twice as much as you borrow over 20 years. If you cut $3 million off, you would actually tax for 6 million less in the bond issue.

Jordahl: The question, I think ought to focus in part on not just the cost of the bond issue. It should also look at the cost of other County operations. The Health Department is operating in crowded conditions, on and on. Around the place we’ve been looking at our space needs in a balanced way and trying to weigh one department against another and say OK, these are the needs across the County. One of those things was to be putting money aside for the Jail. The reason the Jail comes to the front burner is we’ve got the Jail Inspector coming in and saying, now. What does that do to all of our other space needs? Passing the bond issue is one question. What about our other space needs? Push them out of consideration, but put everything we can into this Jail project in order to reduce the amount we borrow, the amount we tax for in the long run to pay off the bond issue.

Stutsman: That’s what Pat’s getting at about this fiscal analysis. What are the long term impacts? Not just for the Space Needs but all the other departments within the County.

White: Questions like is there a 10-year solution rather than a permanent solution? Is there a shorter term plan that would have a smaller dollar cost today to be followed up by another major expenditure in 10 years or 15 years at the right site with the right design. Rather than doing everything at once at a 20 million dollar cost? We haven’t had that sort of discussion. Maybe there isn’t. I don’t know if there is.

Jordahl: Staffing has certainly been a big part of that discussion. I don’t know. Bob, do you?

Carpenter: I don’t have anything to say.

Grimm: The State is aware of the County’s problem through the Governor’s office and through the news media that has been well advertised that we were in a dilemma with the jail situation. I think with the proper correspondence you could get some leeway with jail inspections. If they see that definitely you are trying to do something. They have seen that too.

Painter: The Board is meeting again Thursday to talk about this.

White: I bet we still do advocate in buying the borrowing down as much as possible. My assumption has been, if we’re going to go with this proposal that we could borrow 18 or 17 million. Over the next 2 fiscal years through the same system that’s been used we could get the partly designated million up to 2 or 2 and a half. There’d be some other options to deal with other space needs if the Board were willing. I think that’s going to be a problem. This is going to be such a big expense. But there are smaller bond issues. 800,000 as I recall is the amount that Tony has mentioned and I think is in the Code. Tom has talked to the Space Needs Committee before about some internal financing would be the right option. But based on cash flow I think there are some options to undertake some additional projects. I don’t think you totally foreclose your ability to do other much more modest projects. It will certainly be harder. But we’ve all agreed, the one thing that we think everybody’s been unanimous on is the jail is needed and it’s the number one priority.

Jordahl: Why would you run around and bond on a smaller project that we’ve already delineated as needed and is budgeted for?

White: Because I don’ think you’ll have budgeted for it.

Jordahl: We have if we don’t include that money as a part of our assumption that we’re going to buy down the bond on the jail.

White: Right. I’m just saying if you buy down the jail bond issue and have some other needs you’re not necessarily absolutely (inaudible) be some other options.

Jordahl: Right. But those things, to the extent that we needed to invoke public consent for those things, it would be like… I return to my earlier point, if we’re going to ask the public’s consent for the Jail, then we should ask for the whole price tag. And see if people are willing to pay the price tag. One way or the other they are going to pay for it.

White: I think that may be the only judgment you have to make at this point unless you decide to slow the whole thing down. My recommendation is if you buy the borrowing down, do it. You save money you send a message to the public. You’ve got options for other things if they’re truly needed and this is the highest priority. It’s my recommendation is if you’re going to go with a $20 million or $21 million project, ask to borrow 2, 2 and a half, $3 million less than that. I don’t know how many votes that persuades.

Slockett: Right. That’s my problem.

White: My personal feeling is it does bring you more support if the public says, this is their number one priority, they’re not holding money back to do something else that they could’ve spent on what they’re asking us to approve. And you save money in the long run.

Kriz: I think fiscally from the saving I would agree with Pat on that. You show some intent that you have something put away for it. There are going to be ways to do smaller projects, through some cash flow. Work that we could do. But, I think it’s really important to show we have something into it. When I was in a bank and somebody came to me and wanted to buy this new car and wanted to put absolutely nothing in it and wanted me to finance 100% of it, that was a tough go. Because I didn’t know how well they planned for a situation like this or where they wanted to go. Small analogy, but it looks that way. As Pat says, we are committed, we know that this is a major project that we want to look at and I think we should have something into it. It does preclude a 4 or 5 or $6 million project in the near future. But I think the 300,000 and 500,000 some of those types of things could be achieved even by paying that down. There is some air. I don’t think it’ll change a lot of votes, like we talked about. When you get in the scope of 18 to $20 million that’s so beyond what people can conceive that that probably isn’t going to have a huge bearing. I do think it shows the commitment that we’re trying to in the best way we can plan for where we need to be. When you come to dollars, just on the interest we don’t have to pay to reinvest in some of the other projects.

Slockett: If you don’t think it’s going to necessarily help on the votes then I would caution about doing it because… I’ve been talking about the fact that we’ve never run into our levy limit of 350 for the general fund before. But we’re about to do that within the next few years if we keep going along the same pattern of spending that we have been in the past. We don’t know what the operating costs of this jail are. If it gets filled up before we think and we don’t have the revenues that we’re hoping for, the cost could be quite high and could cut into our available resources. If we spend every penny that we have saved or have set aside for projects, I’m just concerned about not having anything to fall back on, if the costs turn out to be more than we think and if the public doesn’t go along with it. Because, with going over the levy limits, that requires additional publications and I think the public doesn’t like to see us go over the limits. We’ve had discussions in the past when we’re limited about even using the options within the limits that we had to increase the taxes a little bit. There’s a history of the public not liking going over limits. I’m just concerned about what resources we’re going to have to run the County and this new facility if things don’t work out in an optimistic way a couple of years down the road.

Jordahl: I’m interested in the issue this gentleman has. What’s your name again sir?

Grimm: Robert Lea Grimm.

Jordahl: It’s nice to meet you face to face. Mr. Grimm raised the issue of having this money…

Grimm: Tagged.

Jordahl: Tagged.

Grimm: Set aside.

Jordahl: Set aside.

Grimm: So you can build to it later on.

Jordahl: The other question you raised too, about whether the State will cut us some slack and time on this thing. We’re going to hit that transportation question. Tom, you’re talking about putting this money aside here as kind of a good faith gesture that the County has been planning. We have, the money is there in large part because we have been planning for the Jail, but not entirely. The trouble is, if we don’t spend that on the bond issue then we’re going to spend it on transporting prisoners starting at some time. At some point, without the State telling him to, Bob’s going to decide the conditions down here warrant transporting and start requesting some money to do it. That million dollars that we, or 2 or whatever it is that we’re choosing to buy down the bond issue for the Jail with, could be seen as either going to that or going to transportation. But not, still no matter what, not being available for other purposes. But I’m interested in this question of how much more time can we get out of the State.

Carpenter: I really don’t think you’re going to see a chance of the State standing back and waiting for you to open a new jail. You’re going to see the expenses shipping out way before that happens.

Jordahl: Even if we approve the bond issue?

Carpenter: Even if we approve.

Jordahl: In a way this conversation is moot, we’ve already spent the money, it sounds like.

Carpenter: You’re going to be spending money. As to how much depends on, number one, how many people of the State save and take out. They’ve already told me approximately 30 of this 92 now and we had 121 in there this last weekend. Our average keeps building, so next years going to be a different number. We’ve established between $10 and 11 a day plus the transportation costs plus the housing cost. You’re looking at roughly around $65 cost, $75 a day cost for transportation and housing. Whatever that figures out. Somewhere around 800 and something, to start off with.

Slockett: Does that include the time of your deputies?

Carpenter: It was done by an Iowa State study Tom. Somebody far smarter than what I am to figure it out.

Slockett: Was it included all of the costs?

Roetlin: It spoke to including salaries, benefits, personnel, cost of transportation (inaudible) a slice of a truck or van.

Carpenter: I want to add that that was to a neighboring county also.

Slockett: Is this an Iowa State study.

Carpenter: That’s correct.

Roetlin: It did use the word neighboring fairly strategically.

Slockett: It didn’t say Illinois or Missouri or Minnesota.

Jordahl: How does that resolve this question. In one sense, in terms of other space needs that I’ve been trying to balance this with, transportation costs are going to eat that anyway. How does that run up against the 3.50? You said we had 650,000 head room?

Thompson: Could I make a comment about that? It’s important to remember that if we have a bond issue, that’s a separate levy, over and above our regular budget. But, if we have to transport, all of that money has to come out of the regular budget and is subject to the minimum levy. That’ll have a huge impact on everybody’s budget if it gets to be very large.

White: I still haven’t heard an operating cost estimate for the new jail. Is that because I just haven’t listened at the right time?

Carpenter: I don’t think there is one yet.

White: That doesn’t make sense to me.

Carpenter: I think before the November election you’d have that figure Pat. That’s the reason why we’re asking the public to take the vote on it. They don’t want it, they can vote it down. That’s the whole idea. Let’s let the public decide rather than the elected officials here is the way I look at it.

Jordahl: But, Tom has mentioned a figure during our last budget go round, at a meeting I wasn’t at, that talked about our maximum statutory head room within our budget for additional taxation is about $650,000 a year. If transportation costs ran above that, if we just looked at transportation, then that would eat into the Capital Projects budget even if everything else was the same. There’ll be new growth and so forth. In terms of paying off the bond issue, Carol’s point that that would be over and above the current taxation that would not then apply. We’d still have head room to that transportation and our current space projects until such time as the bond, as soon as we bonded for the whole thing. We wouldn’t be pinched.

Slockett: That’s part of why I’m worried about spending all available funds to buy down the bond issue. Because it wouldn’t be desirable, but in an emergency situation it would probably be possible to convert the money in the Capital Projects Fund for operating expenses, if it was absolutely necessary. If you don’t have them, then it’s going to have to come out of other budgets. That would be the only choice left.

Jordahl: How would that play out, Pat, if we wanted to buy down the bond issue, or Tony, and we earmarked this million dollars a year that we’ve currently got in Capital Projects for buying down the bond issue.

White: 4 more.

Jordahl: 4 more, and I hope more. Bob had to start transporting in the meanwhile, and we only have $650,000 of additional taxation room, and that million is sequestered some way. This is where the tying the hands of other boards thing comes in. How do we tie the hands of the Board or of ourselves by saying that we’re buying down the bond issue with this money? Where does that go? Is it in some special savings account that…

Carpenter: It goes on the ballot. The ballot language will create a commitment that you’ll have to meet.

Jordahl: Right. But then the bills of paying for transportation and housing for prisoners are also commitments that we have to meet.

White: That would be a regular operating budget item. It’s not impossible to have both. Even by the best scenario, voters said yes, November occupancy is probably 2 years, a year and a half?

Carpenter: 18 to 24 months after August.

White: You may start to get some transportation costs before that.

Carpenter: We’re going to see transportation costs go up.

White: If current trends continue at least.

Lehman: You’re saying if you bond for 20 million, this extra money is going to have to get used up in the mean time. If the jail issue doesn’t pass, you’re going to have to… I think we have to almost bond for the price of the jail.

Slockett: Right. The other things is…

Lehman: These other funds are going to spoken for.

Slockett: If you use part of the money from future funds that can’t be guaranteed, it might affect the interest rate you get on the bonds, too.

Stutsman: I guess when I first started, or was in support of this capital projects, I never viewed this as funds that we could raid. I thought, no, we’ve committed to these funds. Of course, I could be off the Board, and another Board can view it entirely differently. But I don’t like to approach it with the idea, well, we’ve always got this money to get us through tough times, that we’ve put that money aside in good faith. I think we have to be disciplined about keeping it, what it’s intended use was.

Carpenter: Well, quite honestly, I don’t look at that million dollars there as money for the new jail. I look at it as a Band-Aid to get us through until it’s built. If we start shipping out 30 prisoners, you’re going to take $800,000 just for transportation…

Stutsman: Exactly.

Carpenter: …and housing fees, which we’re above the limit that we’ve already supposedly got. If we start doing that, how are we going to pay for it? My understanding is that you’re limit is, what, $650,000 or so?

Slockett: This year it is, and next year it could well be less.

Carpenter: What I’m saying is, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to pay the bill some way or another, so I don’t look at that. I wasn’t at that meeting, but I don’t look at that million dollars as something that is going to be to build a new jail.

Slockett: But also what Sally said applies to that because this is a capital project, and paying for transportation for prisoners isn’t permissible for capital projects. You would have to take the money out of capital projects and put it back into the general fund.

Jordahl: Right.

Stutsman: Right, it would take a budget amendment.

Jordahl: What the implication would be of the point you raised, Sally, of saying this is sacrosanct as capital projects money… Which I’m fine with that position, I like having a Capital Projects budget that we don’t raid, is then that we would have to figure out how we’re going to pay for the sudden costs, and dramatic costs, of transportation out of something else. Something’s got to give. Could we in mid-year approach this $650,000 if we’d have to start transporting? How do we get to that?

Slockett: No. That’s set when you set the budget.

Jordahl: Right, so we’re stuck for this year. Things are going to start taking it on the chin. What don’t we do that’s in our current budget when we have to start transporting, assuming that we hold the line on Capital Projects? That’s what it really means. The point that you or maybe both of you guys were getting around to is if we choose to buy down the cost of the jail with this thing…

Slockett: If we do that, we’re taking bigger risks in meeting costs that we can’t predict with certainty.

Lehman: It’s the kind of deal where you’re saving money for new tableware and you starve to death before you get it saved up. It doesn’t do you any good.

Stutsman: Now what was that again? You always have pretty…

Jordahl: That was really good, that was good. You’ve got to listen to Mike.

Lehman: You’re saving up to buy new table setting, but you starve to death before you get enough accumulated and can go back to buying food. There’s no point in saving for something that you’ll never…

Stutsman: No, you give it to your kids then.

Jordahl: Starve to death at age 46, but by golly, these kids have silverware.

Painter: The starvation analogy is a good one, and probably it doesn’t make a lot of sense to starve other portions of the budget for the sake of looking a little better on the front end of a nonetheless very large ballot question anyway.

Stutsman: Excuse me, Kim. I don’t know if this is the line of thinking that you were thinking, but I think we need to be up front with the taxpayers what this is going to cost. I’m kind of hesitant to say well, if we present it this way it won’t seem so bad. It’s an expensive project. There’s no getting around about it. It’s going to be an increase in taxes. I think the taxpayers need to be educated about what this is going to cost one way or the other, and it’s their choice.

Carpenter: I don’t think there’s anybody that said this is going to be a non-expensive project, nor have we said that we can open a new facility for as cheap as what we were on this one. But we’re running a 46 bed facility now, so what can you expect but to add expenses to run on a 255 bed facility.

Slockett: Yes, that’s going to cost more.

Carpenter: We run a 46 bed facility for almost 20 years now, with way over 46 people for a long, long time. We’ve done our job of trying to save the money for the taxpayers. It’s time somebody figures out we’re going to have to pay for it. It’s not my job to do anything but to take care of those people for the taxpayers. I’m sorry, but the buck stops here. The taxpayers are going to have to figure out what they want to do. Pay me now or pay me later is simply the bottom line.

Grimm: Can I add a comment when you’re done, Robert?

Carpenter: Yes, I’m done.

Grimm: I’m sort of against what would be considered a pyramid effect, people in and out, in and out, until they come up to the top. Running so much of the populace through the jail system. If you ask some of the people who help with the newer jail they have now, they’re going to be excited about it. If the pyramid effect of trying to get people in and in just makes the lawyers rich.

Painter: Does that feel like enough in terms of input or discussion here for the Board members who are interested in seeing us talk about this?

Jordahl: I’m not satisfied yet. It seems like we’re getting close to something, but we’re not quite there yet.

White: You have a difference of opinion. I don’t know that you’ll ever get there.

Painter: No, I think my feeling is that it’s something that you guys will talk about on Thursday and make your final decision about. I don’t want to shut down conversation, and I won’t, certainly, not with this group. But I think we’ve had a good sharing of the different opinions that are out there.

Jordahl: I’m looking for implications not opinions. I think that there is a set of facts that will lead to a conclusion on this… When you say difference of opinion, I did write down what you said about alternatives for less money. I understand that there are… Opinions on this go quite beyond whether we put one or another million dollars into a buying down bond issue. But just on that question of what’s the math of buying down the bond issue in the framework of transporting prisoners. I don’t feel like I understand the answer to that well enough yet.

Stutsman: I don’t think we have time to thoroughly analyze that if we’re going to vote on this buy Thursday. It almost seems that we have to decide do we want that thorough analysis, and if we do, then we’re not going to have this on the ballot for November. If we know that it’s going to be at least a $20 million project, and we’re ready to go ahead with it, then that decision is already made.

Jordahl: What I’m not grasping is how the transportation costs relate to the question of whether it’s an $18 or a $20 million bond issue. Can somebody help me with that?

Slockett: They’re totally independent of that.

Jordahl: Well, assume we’re at our tax limit though. Assume that it’s not $650, that it costs $1,300 to transport prisoners.

Slockett: The difference is that we don’t know how much the cost will be, but we’ve had predictions that it could be a million to $2 million a year in a short period of time. If that happens, the extra that we have in Capital Projects that might be available in an emergency would be used up very rapidly anyway.

Jordahl: So what does that mean? What does that mean we should do in terms of buying this thing down? Does it mean we have to keep it in Capital Projects in order to have it used up?

Kriz: I think it means the most conservative route, too, it would be to bond with the whole project.

Jordahl: Vote for the whole thing. Yes. Because we know, and this is one thing I don’t want to be criticized for in the future… Is that he knew that we’re going to have to transport prisoners and instead he put all the money he was going to need for that into buying down the cost of the bond issue to make it pass. Of course, if it doesn’t pass then it won’t be sitting there obligated and we’ll be able to use it.

Carpenter: See, Jonathan, I think we’re going back just about the same way we did 20 years ago. We knew when we were coming into this new facility, 20 years ago, that this was a 46 bed facility. We brought 30 prisoners down to it. Now how do you expect, in 20 years, to only grow by 16? That doesn’t make sense. But because the fact that we didn’t get a bond issue, that they lost one bond, they reduced the size and just kept getting smaller in order to (inaudible)… That’s something that the taxpayers are going to have to decide what they want to do.

Jordahl: So you’re for the whole thing?

Carpenter: It’s the truth of the matter.

Jordahl: Yes.

Carpenter: That’s what we’re trying to do to the taxpayers, let them know what it’s going to cost to build a facility. It’s a 255 bed facility that’s going to cost just a hair over $20 million. That’s certainly not bid but that’s what they’re thinking it will cost. I’m not an architect, I’m just going with what they said.

Jordahl: Yes, I think I agree with you.

Lehman: That’s one of the questions the public’s going to have. All right, you tell me it’s $20 million. The question is going to be, what would you cost if we don’t. You’ve got an 8 year old car. Can you predict what it’s going to cost you to keep it going? I know what a new car is going to cost me, but I can’t predict how much money I’m going to have to put in it. We don’t know how many prisoners, how far, how often. We won’t know that until after the fact if this thing doesn’t pass.

Carpenter: The only thing we’ve got to go with on it, Mike, is the fact this Iowa State study that says they charge so much a day on top for transportation costs on top of the housing costs to a bordering county. I have no idea what it’s going to cost to transport out of the state, if we have to go there. I don’t know. All I know is that Muscatine County, which is one of the fairly new facilities, only had a room for 6 of them. Those had to be sentenced prisoners a week ago. Eldora was the next closest place with any amount at all, which is quite a jaunt.

Lehman: But that’s not the center. We’re not able to nail that down, a dollar figure. If it’s not done, there will be so many dollars spent next year to transport prisoners, and the year after that. We can’t give them that figure.

Stutsman: Well, when I first got elected, I thought, gee, I wish I had a crystal ball. So many of the decisions that we make, if we only had a crystal ball. But we don’t have that, so you make the best judgement with the information you have.

Jordahl: I think what we would be doing is we would be restricting our ability to meet the other needs of the County if we don’t bond for the whole thing.

Stutsman: That’s the way I feel about it, too. I think we’re just going to back ourselves into a corner. Every indication is that this county is not going to quit growing.

Jordahl: I agree with you.

Stutsman: There’s every reason to believe that it’s just…

Lehman: I’d rather have one less argument of…

Stutsman: …continued needs.

Lehman: It should have been 18 and 2 or 20. I’d rather have, this is what we’re proposing, is $20 million or 20 point whatever. You decide you want to spend that or do you want to have the guesswork of not knowing what it’s going to cost you. I don’t want to have to figure it. It should have been different over here. It should have been 18 and 2 rather than the 20 he gave me. I’d rather have it’s the 20 he gave me and the unknown. Because the unknown is there no matter what the other combination’s going to be.

Budget Coordinator Jeffrey Horne: I was just going to say, I’m going to be talking to a gentleman named Stew Delacaster, who’s the jail administer. Pottawattamie County just completed a 288 bed facility, which is similar in size.

Stutsman: Pottawattamie, that’s Council Bluffs. OK.

Horne: I’m going to be talking to him a little bit about… It says they house their inmates range between $55 and $150 a day. I’m going to try to get an idea of how that whole procedure went with that.

Carpenter: What was that?

Horne: Pottawattamie County?

Carpenter: What’s the range?

Horne: The jail administrator indicated that they were spending between $55 and $150 per day per inmate to transport. I’ve got to talk to him. I’ve a call into him, and I’m going to find out how they bonded.

Lehman: That’s part of the information…

Slockett: The operating cost. Maybe you could get the operating cost.

Horne: Right. The operating cost.

Lehman: If we put our figures in it, if we decided the 20 point… That’s part of the information that’s going to have to be supplied to the public is, these are your options, the $20 million or a factor that’s unknown but we could estimate for transportation. Those are your 2 choices. If you don’t vote for the jail, we will be able to give you that figure in a year, and in the next year…

Jordahl: …it’ll keep going up.

Lehman: Those are the 2 choices you have. We’ll give you the best information that we have of what it will cost if the jail is not built, but these are your 2 choices, 20.5 and an estimate of what we won’t know until after the fact.

White: Why are those the 2 choices? That’s another question that is going to get asked. Why isn’t there a $10 million choice, or a $12 million choice that would come closer within the current budget situation. If we don’t need 255 beds today, the projection is we need them in 20 years. But if you need a 5 bedroom house in 20 years it would be nice to build it today. But is that the most fiscally prudent thing to do in light of all of these other priorities? Is there a plan which would spend 10 or 12 or 15 for a 180 bed facility with a plan to come back in 10 years.

Thompson: Pat, I think that makes a lot of sense if we were Wisconsin and didn’t have to do a bond issue referendum every time we wanted to add on.

White: That may be.

Thompson: Since we do, since this is Iowa, and we not only have to have the referendum, we have to get 60%, it seems like we should go for the longest term possible so that we don’t have to do this again within anyone’s living memory.

White: I think County government needs to make a judgement about the finances here rather than just saying put it on the ballot and let the voters decide. We spend hours and hours and hours, you guys do, talking about budgets and spend another hour and a half, hour today.

Lehman: We can’t make a multiple choice ballot, can we?

White: No you can’t.

Stutsman: Nice try, Mike.

Lehman: That’s why what we’ve heard. I guess I’m satisfied with the 255 proposal.

Carpenter: I think you’re looking at getting in the same situation you are now, in 20 years.

Stutsman: Exactly, Bob. People ask me, they say, why didn’t you buy that land around, or make it bigger 20 years ago. I thought, well, the County, after 3 bond issues, decided to go with the most conservative and let somebody else in the future deal with it. I think we’re going to lay the same framework again.

Carpenter: If it wasn’t for the loophole we got 10 years ago when we double bunked. I can imagine what the taxpayers would have said. You just built a new jail. You’re telling us we just build a new jail 20 years ago now.

Jordahl: Yes.

Carpenter: Turn around in 10 years and ask for another bond issue to add on? Besides that, you’ve got the cost of inflation and the possibility of interest rates going up. The cost alone would be a large savings to build it now compared to 10 years ago, probably. That’s what most people have told me, anyway.

Jordahl: We had a citizens committee. There was a lot of looking into this thing. Part of the question of why don’t we have a different solution. It’s not as though the question hasn’t been looked at for a long time. There comes a point where you have to say we’re not going to have all of the facts, ever. Do we have enough now to think we know what we’re doing?

Carpenter: I really believe the size had something to do with the architectural concerns of the best bust for your buck. If you’re going to build a pod system, 100 size pod for the minimum and maximum is the best way to go. It’s the most economical type of structure to build. You can make it but it doesn’t make sense.

Jordahl: In terms of staffing costs again. It’s kind of an optimal staffing situation that you’re trying to achieve. That’s why you have that central monitoring structure.

Carpenter: Same thing.

White: But it’s interesting they reached that conclusion and haven’t produced any costs.

Carpenter: Pat, you can talk about costs. But your costs are never going to go away. If you start shipping out you’ve got further costs on it too. Nobody’s ever said you can start off this new facility cheaper than what we’re doing now. But I can tell you one thing within 10 years you’re probably going to be operating a lot cheaper per person than you are now.

White: I’d agree with that.

Carpenter: But you’re never going to start off on a new facility for cheaper than what you’re doing right now. Because number one we’re probably running under staffed as the way it is. I don’t know how we can get any more staff anyway.

White: You are.

Carpenter: I don’t know how you can get any more staff in there to operate. There’s only so much floor space.

White: You’re understaffed in the jail, you’re understaffed in control.

Jordahl: It’s the conditions that Bob’s staff have to work under. Part of the constructing a new jail isn’t just how many prisoners can you squeeze in.

White: We’re not debating whether we need a new jail.

Jordahl: I’m talking about staffing costs. I’m saying that if we have a new jail, yes we’re going to have more costs for staffing because we’re going to be able to staff the thing the way that it should be. That’s what I’m trying to address.

White: But how much of that $600,000 margin will that take?

Slockett: We don’t know.

White: We don’t have a clue.

Slockett: We have no idea.

Lehman: We need those figures because people will be starting to vote a month before November 7. People will be making their decision 40 days before. If they don’t have the information they’re either going to make an informed or uninformed decision.

Jordahl: We should be able to get that number.

Lehman: The sooner the better.

Stutsman: Jeff could you start working on that number.

Jordahl: It’s somewhere between you guys and…

Thompson: Venture capital has a good start on that number.

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: Pat you talk about building something today and then doing something 10 years from now. What are you thinking?

White: Sally, I’m thinking first of all when we started this discussion I was assuming, obviously way too optimistically, that we’d end up with a project somewhere between 10 and 15 million dollars. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind I was hoping for 9. That’s obviously not realistic. I’m thinking a $20 million project stretches our fiscal capacity beyond what is in the best interests of the county at this point. My question is, is there an option at less than 20 that makes more sense for the County fiscal policy and the County budget situation that would achieve the new jail or expanded capacity safety and avoid transportation costs. I don’t remember exactly the numbers but if you choose the 20 year even principle repay your first year projection cost is 1.6 million.

Roetlin: You mean the payment?

Slockett: 1,970,000 for the 20 million/20 year.

Roetlin: Or even payments.

White: I’m saying we’re going to add 1,900,000, to your existing budget because the voters say it’s OK. But don’t we owe them a more serious analysis of what that does to the county budget capacity than we’ve had. Maybe the answer is yes Pat we would’ve liked to have done that but we’re just flat out of time. Because we clearly have a preference for using the general election, we’re just going to have to go with what we know.

Jordahl: When you say County fiscal capacity it probably betrays the depths of my ignorance that I don’t understand what you’re saying there. The bond issue money is going to come out of an additional, but the bond issue itself constraining us. Is that what you’re talking about?

White: Let’s suppose you didn’t have a bond issue requirement.

Jordahl: Just staffing the jail.

White: Wouldn’t you take more time to deliberate what you’re doing if you were going to spend 1.9 million plus staffing costs. Wouldn’t you want to know what the staffing costs were? And wouldn’t you have a very difficult time saying we’ve got the authority and we know we’ve got a 20 year need, we’re just going to add this into the budget?

Jordahl: We aren’t adding this into the budget.

White: I see you guys spend hours trying to find tens of thousands of dollars to shave off a budget to hold taxes down.

Jordahl: To stay within the budget as it…

White: More than that Jonathan. To try to make it as palatable as it can be for the citizens of Johnson County. You’ve got authority to spend more than you’ve been spending but you choose not to do it. I think at least so far we just haven’t had that sort of discussion. How much do we want to spend?

Lehman: That question maybe boils down to would you rather delay this thing and spend 40,000 for a special election and have your numbers in order. How much of the numbers can you get in order? We can’t come up with how much you’re going to spend on prisoners.

Carpenter: I would think way before election time, they’re going to have the staffing costs.

Lehman: We’re talking about this overall picture of 20.5. People are going to ask us what are you going to do with the old building. Maybe we’re going to use it for other departments that are paying rent somewhere else. Maybe there’s a value to an outside party. We can’t put that figure on the table either.

Carpenter: I don’t know what the price of gas is going to be 3 years from now either so you can do all of that you want.

White: We do know every time the voter is asked they don’t want special elections if you can get it on to an existing ballot.

Stutsman: When is the next election after the November election. Could it be a school board election?

Jordahl: That wouldn’t be countywide.

Slockett: You’d have to have a special election or wait 2 years.

Stutsman: OK.

White: I assume that’s largely why we’re here I guess.

Slockett: I think most of what I wanted to say has been said. I would disagree with the notion that because it takes a 60% vote you should try to build something for the next 200 years so you’ll never have to do it again. What’s wrong with having another 60% vote for half as much, 10 years from now when you better justify the size increase you’re asking for. I don’t see anything wrong with that at all myself.

Carpenter: Did you lose what I said? The reason why they build those sizes is because of the economics to start with.

Slockett: I guess the way they have described the pods and the scalability of them, their ability to expand, it seems to me it would cost more to increase 100 beds twice or 120 beds twice. Once now and once in 10 years. The total cost would be more but the increases would be a lot less both times. I think that given the nature of the population at the University and peoples concerns about cost but about all kinds of more esoteric issues about freedom and incarceration and so forth, this population would be much more amenable to building the smallest necessary increase, than would last 20 years.

Jordahl: But they were wrong last time when they thought that.

Slockett: That’s your opinion. A lot of people don’t think they were wrong.

Jordahl: The same people that don’t want to vote for a bond issue to build a jail now don’t think it was wrong to build a too small jail last time. An unexpandable jail?

Carpenter: What you’re losing is when you build a pod, a circle this size, the only way you’re going to pick up another pod or add to that pod is to build another pod which means another control center and more personnel to operate it. You’re going to double your staff for no reason or other in 10 years time. It doesn’t make sense. When you’re building you’ve got a little bit more wealth, a little more concrete and mortar but that’s it. You can’t go in and rebuild. You can’t make that circle bigger. You have to go to another circle. You just can’t build it.

Slockett: But you’re already building 2 pods aren’t you.

Carpenter: 3 pods. One for minimum security which is a much more reasonable cost. One for maximum security and one for special needs.

Slockett: Well then why can’t you build one pod or 2 pods and then in 10 years build one or 2.

Stutsman: Which one are you going to get rid of?

Carpenter: Which one do you want to eliminate?

Slockett: Well that would be something you would have to discuss and decide.

Carpenter: You know absolutely nothing about jails do you Tom?

Jordahl: We’ve got a jail consultant hired that does this.

Carpenter: You don’t know anything about it.

Stutsman: I’ve been following the debate on this issue and sometimes a lot of it boils down to the way we wish society was. We think by shutting our eyes and closing our ears that we can go back to when we didn’t need to consider building these prisons. We all hate to think about that’s what we’re doing, is just building bigger and bigger prisons to put people away. But until our society changes and is willing to put more dollars into preventive stuff… I hate to be so pessimistic but I don’t see any big changes happening. Maybe we could ask Pat to quit arresting so many people but I don’t think he’s going to compromise his prosecution record. That’s kind of a debate we really don’t want.

Slockett: I don’t feel that way. I think that views are changing on who we should put in jail and how we should treat non-violent people versus violent people. I think that the laws might change that would result in increasing the percentage of people in jail at a much slower rate than we have the last 10 or 20 years. I think that is possible. I think a lot of people are hopeful that that would be the case. That’s one of the reasons that I said that for this community it would be more acceptable to have a larger incremental increase with a plan for increasing it more later when necessary. I think that would be much more palatable for the people.

Painter: I sort of dread continuing too far down this road, but I would offer up my opinion. I think one of the more less considered opinions or even naïve opinions is the opinion that for some reason there are a whole lot of alcohol related arrests that don’t have anything to do with the kind of violence that requires some incarceration.

Carpenter: I beg to differ with that because you will see most of those that are involved with other charges…

Painter: I’m saying that actually violence is often quite strongly linked to those types of arrests. I’m just not sure that saying we would like to decrease our numbers of public intoxication type arrest would be that feasible given the numbers of them that seem to have a fairly violent component. That’s a concern that I have.

Grimm: I’ve got a concern too. I’ve been institutionalized and in jails 3 or 4 times. The structure proposed here when I first saw it, made me think they’ve got sugar plums dancing in their heads. When you put a person in a structure there is pressure on you. Especially with no windows. You get into a situation where putting people in with no view of the outside you lose contact with yourself, humanity and the weather and everything else. This place has no fence, no courtyard to get out to walk around in. That would be very inhuman in this day and age. It should have a basketball court, and a smoking facility that’s away from everybody else. I haven’t seen the plan yet. The actual costs will be known and has been known for the construction. They operating costs they can go right down and record build fuel plus the staffing. You should if you want to think about the jail, something easy to build. This is the cheap way, no windows, just lit up. We’re building schools just like the jail before they even get the houses around them. Just a little bit more. The concept of the all of the angles in this structure is very upsetting to the human psyche. It is very bad. It is an alternative that is (inaudible).

Kriz: I think Kim the agenda part of this is just to decide on ballot language.

Painter: Most of that is filled in.

Kriz: The Sheriff, the Auditor, the Treasurer can’t decide what you will have to ultimately decide on at this point.

Stutsman: No but it’s been a good discussion.

Kriz: We can disagree on a lot of this.

Lehman: I appreciate everybody’s input.

Kriz: I think you’ve probably got enough to go with the best that you can.

Jordahl: I think there have been a number of statements made here about the character, quality or amount of information that we do or don’t have or have or have not sought about this situation that serves as a basis for making a decision on this. I want to make sure that I dispute those before we end this topic. That we had a long process of citizens committee meetings. We had a consultant that looked at our jail needs. We have now an architectural consultant. Their business is not to look at a situation in a county and say we’re going to build you more than you need. We made it very clear to these consultants that what we wanted was something that would be possible to grow, that would serve our needs currently, and help make a staffing more efficient and make a more humane environment. That’s the project. We’ve gotten those questions answered. Those who aren’t satisfied with those answers will continue to dispute that. I’m satisfied we have those answers. You can always say we don’t have enough information. It will always be true but it’s also true that you’ve got to do something sometimes. I’m ready to myself take this to the public.

Painter: OK.

(Continued in Transcript Part 2)