• Free Medical Clinic Co-Director Sandy Pickup: Presentation on Free Medical Clinic

• County Engineer Mike Gardner and Assistant County Engineer Al Miller: Scheduling a Work Session to Provide Additional Direction to Secondary Roads Department for Completion of North Corridor Roads Feasibility Study

• Chatham Oaks Director Mary Donovan and Architect Bob Burns: Transition Housing

• Discussion: Contract Award for State Reimbursement to Counties for Substance Abuse Funding Fiscal Year 2003-2004 in the Amount of $10,000.00

• Discussion: Scheduling a Meeting with Cedar Rapids City Officials

• Discussion: Videotaping of Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Planning Council Meetings

• Report (Thompson): Attended Budget Work Sessions; Attended GIS Committee Meeting; Attended Meeting with League of Women Voters Representatives; Attended Work Session on MH/DD Contracts; Attended Senior High Alternative Center Advisory Committee Meeting; Attended Joint Meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission; Attended Courthouse Security Meeting; Attended Employee Handbook Work Session; and Attended MECCA Board Orientation

• Report (Lehman): Guest Speaker at Regina High School Government Classes; Attended Meeting with Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Elaine Sweet; and Attended National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Meeting

• Report (Stutsman): Attended National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Meeting; and Attended Meeting with Ambulance Director Steve Spenler

• Report (Neuzil): Upcoming Meeting with Facilities Director David Kempf; Upcoming SEATS Advisory Board Meeting; and Upcoming Meeting with League of Women Voters

• Report (Harney): Attended Meeting with SEATS Director Tom Brase; and Attended MH/DD Work Session; Attended Joint Work Session with Planning and Zoning Commission; and Attended Chamber of Commerce Ag Committee Meeting

• Steve Hamilton: Concerns with Cedar Rapids Annexing Johnson County Land

• Iowa City Area Development Representative Joe Raso: Update on Iowa City Area Development

Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:17 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Harney: First order of business is presentation from Sandy Pickup, Co-Director for the Free Medical Clinic. She’ll provide us an overview of the Free Medical Clinic.

Stutsman: Good morning.

Free Medical Clinic Co-Director Sandy Pickup: Good morning. Thanks for inviting me this morning. I thought I would just go over a little bit about the services the Free Medical Clinic offers and who the people are that we see and give you some numbers about how many people we saw this last year and things like that. We have a new mission statement; providing health care to those in need. Last year the Free Medical Clinic saw over 2,400 patients for 5,460 clinic visits. Out of that number there were many more people that we’re seeing that have chronic diabetes and hypertension. More and more people are coming to us with those chronic illnesses. The clinic has changed over the many years in that we used to be kind of an acute care clinic seeing colds, flu and birth control, things like that. We have had a 17% increase from FY 01 to FY 02 about people coming to us with those concerns of chronic diabetes, hypertension, asthma, things like that. Just in this year alone, this is fiscal year starting in July, we’ve had an increase of 50 more people that have come to us. We had about 4 or 5 just last week, people that are uninsured and don’t have the ability to pay for the medications and doctor visits that would require. This obviously requires more and more resources. These are working people that just don’t have insurance. The $92,000 the County gives helps us pay for the physician to see those people and helps us pay for the medications to give those people. It helps with financial assistance for other kinds of medications that other clients that come to us from other facilities might need and other patient service kinds of coordination and medical supplies, equipment, things like that. We do have a case management program now to serve those people with chronic diabetes and hypertension. That’s paid in part with a city development block grant. That person essentially works with the clients that we see to procure medications from the drug companies that is approximately about $268,000 of medications last year that we were able to receive free of charge from the pharmaceutical companies. That’s probably the only way that we’d be able to serve those people that need medication on an ongoing basis, but it’s quite a lofty amount of paperwork and the like so we are utilizing those programs from those drug companies quite a bit. We’ve had people mention to us that it doesn’t seem like we have a very diverse funding base. We do get a 1/3 of our money from the County and 1/3 from the United Way. Then the other 1/3 comes from fund raising, the City of Iowa City, Coralville, private and patient donations, but we want to make it clear that with the monies that we get from the County and United Way especially that we are able to leverage the medication in kind donations that we get. Lab tests and all the volunteer hours that medical people provide to us is about $500,000 worth of in kind contributions that we bring into the clinic. Without those contributions we wouldn’t be able to provide the level of service that we do. We’re fortunate to have a staff physician and we’re able to have good outcomes with the people that we are seeing with the chronic illnesses. The client satisfaction surveys that we do with people rate us as very good. They don’t have any other place to go unfortunately, so maybe it’s a Catch 22 for them I guess, but we try to provide quality health care for people that are unable to receive health services in other places. I want to mention that we work very closely with the County Health Department. We provide testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. We do testing for Tuberculosis, treatment for Tuberculosis. We get referrals from them on a regular basis for those concerns. The Emergency Housing Project, the Free Medical Clinic and the Health Department work together to make sure that people who are going to reside at the Emergency Housing Project will receive Tuberculosis testing and any kind of follow up that might be needed if they do have a positive test. We’ve started in this last year or two to collect more patient demographic information. We’re hoping, since we’ve been a founding member of a new Iowa Free Clinics Coalition, which is very small and not really able to do much at this point, but that we can get a Statewide network going and finding out who we’re seeing in the State, how these clinics are able to run and what kinds of resources they need and use. That’s been very interesting to just kind of network at this point even on a small level with those other free clinics. So we’re continuing to work with that and as I said we’re one of the founding members, so unfortunately I have to be an officer because there aren’t very many people involved, but we’re working with people in the Des Moines area and Cedar Rapids. Then just as an anecdote, we had a patient, her daughter moved from a different community to Iowa City last year and they both had hypertension, they didn’t have any health insurance. They worked for 9 months with our case manager and our doctor were able to get the medications that they needed in the short term, but then they were both able to get jobs and they got health insurance with those jobs. So they were able to move into the community and be contributing members of the community. That’s what we really like to feel like we do, that we affect the community by helping people get back on their feet and be able to get back out there and work and have jobs that hopefully would provide insurance. That’s a good story that we have. I guess I’d just open it up for questions if anybody had any questions or thoughts they’d like to tell me about.

Thompson: How many free clinics are there in Iowa?

Pickup: I think there 25. A lot of them are in the Des Moines area because they have a thing called the Healthcare Access Network and they open little free clinics. I just got an email from a woman in Marshalltown that had a free clinic. They just closed their free clinic because they have a new community clinic there that’s able to see people for a $5 co-pay. So that’s one of the things that free clinics sort of fill a gap and then when there’s no need, they don’t need to be there any more. She’s still going to operate a program though to help people with medications because that’s one of those unmet needs that is really hard for people to figure out. So she’s going to have a program like we do where she applies to the drug companies and then helps people get medications that way.

Lehman: You had mentioned you had 50 new patients and most of them might fall into the category of chronic illness. Do you have a way to track, are these people that have been in the community or do they come in? Either way, it’s good that they’re finding it.

Pickup: I think a lot of people have been in the community. They’re just loosing their insurance or their health is just getting to a point where they need someone to help them out. We had a patient last year who came in because he was having vision problems. Well it turned out he had really bad diabetes. It was unmanaged, but once it got treated and everything, he’s doing fine. But he didn’t realize that he had diabetes, he just had a problem with his eyes. So things like that.

Stutsman: I understand you had a problem with liability insurance. Has that been worked out? Or with malpractice?

Pickup: In a way. We have liability insurance now, but we had to pay a tail for the policy that was in force when they stopped providing insurance. We have to buy a tail, which essentially is like another insurance policy that covers a claim that might happen after that policy is no longer in force. That was $13,000. We bought an insurance policy to cover our staff physician. In the past that policy covered all the physicians that worked at the Free Medical Clinic for the same cost as if they were one physician. So we’ve had to use the State Volunteer Health Care Program to get all of the volunteer physicians signed up to be on that program. That takes about 6 months sometimes to get those people approved. So that’s been kind of a difficulty I guess. There’s going to be a lag. If any new physicians want to volunteer, it’s going to take a long time if they don’t have their own malpractice insurance to get them on the register. Then the clinic malpractice insurance that we had, we were paying $3,000 some for is going to be $11,000. So it’s solved in that we have it. It’s just difficult in that it’s going to cost a lot more.

Stutsman: You talked about this case manager was funded or the program through the, the CBDG. But that’s a grant right, for just a year? So what happens?

Pickup: We got a grant the first year and we reapplied last year and got the funding again. I’m going to reapply again this next year and hopefully we can then apply for some other grants to maintain that program.

Stutsman: Because that sounds like a valuable….

Pickup: Well it is. Since we’re seeing so many people with those chronic conditions, it really helps to have somebody that can be in charge of all their needs.

Harney: Thank you Sandy.

Pickup: Thank you very much.

Stutsman: Thank you Linda, for continuing to coordinate these. They’ve been real informative.

Harney: Next item on our agenda is business from the County Attorney reference scheduling a work session to provide additional direction to the Secondary Roads department for completion of the North Corridor Roads Feasibility Study. Al Miller and Mike Gardner.

Assistant County Engineer Al Miller: Good Morning.

County Engineer Mike Gardner: Good Morning.

Miller: About last April, I believe, you folks directed us to do a feasibility study of the North Corridor area, the roads and infrastructure in that area. In fall at one of our 5-Year Road Plan meetings we submitted a map to you showing some feasible routes, which is a part of that feasibility study. What we’re looking for is some additional direction on where you wanted us to take that feasibility study. There’s some confusion on how that relates to the 5-Year Road Plan and which roads are actually on the program or how it relates. There’s people that think that map that was given to you, is our 5-Year Road Program. On the program, there’s projects throughout the entire county, bridges and road improvements in a number of different areas in the County. We’ve kind of narrowed down our 5-Year Road Program discussion to one area, which is that area of that feasibility study. I would recommend that if we’re going to schedule another meeting for the feasibility study and the 5-Year Road Program that we separate the 2 and make a distinction between the 2 and get some better information out there on how they relate to each other. The 5-Year Road Program has to be approved and into the State by April 15th. Like I said I think we need some better direction on what you want us to do with that feasibility study and how to proceed from here.

Stutsman: To add to that Al, I think…. Pat and I meet with Mike and Al on a regular basis as the Board’s liaisons. What we were finding is that we get to these 5-Year Road Plans and they just focus on the North Corridor. I think there’s just been confusion about the feasibility study not being the 5-Year Road Plan. It’s just a study that the Board had asked the Secondary Roads Department to put together so we could begin the discussion about the roads in the North Corridor, not to necessarily include that in the North Corridor Plan. But anyway, that’s what the focus became, so we thought we need to give directions about where they want to go or what the Board wants the Secondary Roads Department to do as far as continue exploring these road alignments in the North Corridor. It’s all part of the process and I think the process got a little confusing to everybody. I think this is just an attempt to define where we’re at and where we’re going and give that direction to the Secondary Roads. Just exactly what you said, huh Al?

Gardner: I understood it when you said it better, Sally.

Stutsman: Coming maybe from the confused point of view is….

Neuzil: What’s your recommendation then, to set up a work session? Is that what you’d like?

Gardner: Really what we need right now is just some direction on where you want us to take this feasibility study. Do you want us to continue with it? Do you want us to drop it completely? Do you want us to modify it in some way and then how do we go about arriving at where you want us to take it?

Stutsman: When we were talking, what Al would do in the next phase in this would be start contacting land owners and say the Board is thinking about these alignments, what can we work out or whatever? We have not done that up to this point. I think the process got ahead of itself. People are coming in saying why didn’t you tell us we were doing this? Well it was strictly just something to put on the table for discussion. We weren’t to that point of contacting landowners, but if the Board is interested in continuing to pursue some new alignments up in the North Corridor, then the next logical process is to begin working with landowners. So that’s what we’d being doing is giving the Department the direction to start the next stage of the process.

Lehman: At some point this feasibility study is going to have to be merged in or portions are going to have to be merged in as we come closer to a 5-Year Road Plan. That’s what’s confusing people.

Stutsman: Right. Exactly right.

Lehman: People assume that is the 5-Year Road Plan. But I think what Al and Mike are asking for is narrow it down here just a little bit so as we start, where’s your priorities of which ones do you want, which items, which roads do you want to see put into the 5-Year Road Plan. That’s what they don’t want to be out there knocking on everybody’s door saying hey there, there’s a chance your road could be changed in front of you or going through your property when it may never happen. But we get those people complaining that they didn’t hear anything about it. Well it may never happen, but you owe them some type of notification, but you don’t want to give false alarm either.

Neuzil: The Board has been, at least in the next 4 years of it, I think we’ve given direction to the Secondary Roads Department that as far as the major road projects, we want Sand Road done, we want Newport Road done, we want Prairie DuChien done and we want the roads south of Lone Tree done. I think that’s the direction that we’ve given the Secondary Roads Department. As far as the alignment of those roads, I think that’s where the real discussion is. There’s no doubt about it. There’s a lot of confusion. A lot of people are looking at from Sugar Bottom, to Jordan Creek, all the way up and think that’s a part of the 5-Year Road Plan. That’s not a part of the 5-Year Road Plan at this point. Although, at some point in the very near future, this Board has to decide what road project is on year 5, if that’s going to be Sugar Bottom or if that’s going to be a different road on the list.

Stutsman: So I think today what we need to give them is are we interested in continuing to discuss this feasibility study and continuing to look at some different road alignments in that Sugar Bottom area.

Harney: I think the issue before us is to schedule that work session to work out and give them some direction. Do you have any particular dates in mind that’s available?

Miller: I guess our first choice would be the week of March 3rd if that would work.

Stutsman: So this means that we are interested in going ahead with?

Thompson: I am.

Stutsman: OK. All right. Well then, have that resolved. Giving that direction solved. March 3rd. This is to discuss?

Miller: The feasibility study.

Neuzil: Is this different than the 5-Year Road Plan. Do you need to know before March?

Stutsman: This is different from the 5-Year Road Plan.

Neuzil: The problem with that is some of my decision as one Supervisor on deciding, particularly that 5th year out, is what kind of alignment are we talking about for those projects other than Newport and Prairie DuChien. That’s where it’s going to be difficult to come up with a 5-Year Road Plan before we do this. It almost needs to be turned around. This has to be discussed if we’re going to be able to come up with a project for that 5th year.

Lehman: Because what we add the 5th year could affect future projects, how they all tie in together.

Neuzil: That’s right and then it all starts to connect.

Thompson: We have Newport Road from Sugar Bottom to Highway 1, actually in the 2nd of this 5-Year Road Plan.

Neuzil: Well, Newport to Sugar Bottom.

Thompson: That’s not one we’re looking at realigning.

Stutsman: Well depending on the realignment, it could have an impact on….

Neuzil: It potentially could, if we looked at different options. If we chose to look at maybe Turkey Creek or another road up in that area, then yes it would even affect that.

Harney: I think what’s before us is not necessarily getting into that portion of it, it’s scheduling a work session to decide where we want to give them direction to look at. I think that’s what we need to look at now and then we have the discussion at that time.

Neuzil: When were you planning on discussing the 5-Year Road Plan?

Miller: After this. After the feasibility study.

Neuzil: So even after that. OK.

Miller: We have to have it approved and into the State by April 15th. I just wanted to give us enough time to do a little bit more work on the feasibility study and have some more detailed presentation of that. That’s why I was suggesting March 3rd. You’ve got some other meetings that might influence what you want to do with the infrastructure in that area coming up in February.

Harney: But does that give you enough time or would you prefer having a meeting in February sometime?

Miller: March 3rd would be preference.

Neuzil: That’s a Monday?

Miller: Or the week of March 3rd if that works for you. We can do it earlier as well.

Stutsman: The 4th?

Thompson: How about Tuesday afternoon? The 4th?

Stutsman: Yes, the 4th.

Harney: Would you like to have an evening meeting or a day meeting.

Thompson: Since it’s a work session with us, I prefer daytime. 1:30?

Stutsman: OK. Tell me what you’re going to do at this meeting.

Miller: I’m going to present again and go over what I’ve already presented on the feasibility study, mainly the location study map that I’ve already presented to you.

Stutsman: OK.

Miller: And give you a little bit more detailed plans on what I’ve got done so far. Then just open up the discussion on where you want us to go. Try to nail down if you folks want to include anything that’s in that feasibility study into the 5-Year Road Program or what additional information you need to make that decision for the 5-Year Road Program because shortly after that meeting on March 4th you’re going to have to make some decisions on the 5-Year Road Program.

Thompson: So when we told you to do the feasibility study, we told you to only look at geography and that’s what you’ve done. We’ve heard a lot of comment based on that. So at this meeting, we’d be able to consider the various portions, take off some portions, leave others on if we wanted to and then you’d go ahead and start contacting people.

Miller: Yes, there’s some people that are upset that we’ve gotten as far as we have without contacting people. There’s other people that are upset that when we have a meeting that I can’t tell them how much right-of-way we need in front of their property. So depending on how far you want me to take this, I need direction to start contacting property to owners to finish up plans, determine right-of-way limits and those kind of things. But I don’t want to do that if you guys aren’t even interested in the location that I’m talking about.

Thompson: I guess you picked the location based solely on the best place to build a road.

Miller: The economics and the geography.

Thompson: Just what we told you to do. Then we hear all this comment about going across people farms and things. I guess I’d like to know what your recommendations would be about how much we could vary from the best geographic plan to accommodate the landowners.

Neuzil: In particular the ones that are currently on the 5-Year Road Plan, particularly Newport Road. Maybe if there’s some different options, if we find out that it costs another $2 million to do this route instead of this one, that makes a big difference than if you estimate maybe $2 or $300,000 but in essence you save a bunch of better farmland. That’s maybe something to weigh in.

Miller: So what I will present are the ones of the greatest concern right now, is the different alignments for Newport Road and Prairie DuChien and the economics of the different routes that I’ve looked at and present that to you at that meeting so that you have that information to make a decision on where you want me to go. Is that what I’m hearing?

Stutsman: Great.

Harney: March 4th at 1:30.

Miller: Yes.

Lehman: You’ll work with Mike Sullivan to make sure those publications and meeting notices…

Gardner: Sure.

Stutsman: This will be a work session between the Board and staff.

Harney: It’s not a public hearing, it’s a work session.

Miller: Correct.

Stutsman: Still I think we need to do press releases on it because there’s so much interest in this particular topic.

Harney: Thank you.

Harney: The next item of business is from Mary Donovan, Director of Chatham Oaks Inc. The discussion reference transition housing.

Stutsman: Good morning.

Chatham Oaks Director Mary Donovan: Good morning. I’m Mary Donovan.

Architect Bob Burns: As you know, Mary’s with Chatham Oaks. My name’s Bob Burns. I’m an architect and developer from here in Iowa City. Several years ago, Chatham Oaks and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Johnson County came to me to help them with developing a project to house a special needs type population. Because of our success in Lee County and Keokuk for similar developments, that interest has peaked again this year. Both organizations would like to go ahead with a project, a development. This action that we’re going to ask you to take this morning regarding the site, it is a timely decision that you’ll have to make because an application is due to the City of Iowa City by January 24th for one of the sources of financing that will be used to develop this project. The site that we have in mind, of course, in near the current facility that Chatham Oaks operates for you. We’ll get into that in more detail. But just to update you on where the organization is at this point, the Alliance for the Mentally Ill has decided on their own to support the project, but they will not be actively involved in the long-term ownership of the development. They’re comfortable with or at least they’ve made the decision to leave that to Chatham Oaks, but they will support the concept of the project as we go forward. The development itself is in 2 apartment buildings that’s being proposed. This has been discussed between the Alliance and Chatham Oaks. It’s proposed to be 2 8-plexes, but it’s an apartment building with services. Recognizing that this will be a special needs population that will not only need housing, but also some support services which would be provided by Chatham Oaks on an as needed basis to the residents. The role of the County in this particular development would be to provide a site for the buildings. That could benefit the project if the County were willing to either donate the land or if that were not possible for one reason or another, a long-term lease, such as a 99 year lease, would also be acceptable. We’re not talking about a large tract of land. We think it could fit very well very near the tract of land that’s already been set aside for Chatham Oaks. I’ve got a drawing to show you that. But I just wanted to let you know a little bit about the concept of the ownership of the property. As it moves forward, the development, there’d be a new entity form, which would be a limited partnership. In that limited partnership, Chatham Oaks, which is a non-profit corporation itself would be the general partner. Then there would be an investor, limited partner that would be providing equity capital to help build the project. Because of that the limited partnership becomes an entity of it’s own. It actually will own and operate the building and the property. They could either take title to the land or they could lease the land from the County and we could make this work.

Harney: Who would do that? Chatham Oaks?

Burns: The limited partnership.

Harney: The limited partnership?

Burns: Yes. But Chatham Oaks would be the general partner. What the general partner’s role is to be responsible for the overall management and operation of the property for its term of operation. So the control is still in the hands of Chatham Oaks. The investor, limited partner is merely there to provide equity capital and in return they receive benefits in the way of Federal tax credits to provide a return on their investment of the equity capital. As far as the County’s liability in this, there’d be none, except you are providing the site. We’re here to ask you just to provide the site, but I wanted to give you a little background of who would be actually owning the property.

Thompson: Jean Spaziani was here previously to talk with us about this. We did record in our minutes that we’re definitely interested in this and willing to work with Chatham Oaks, whatever is needed, so we can have a more thoughtful approach to how we want to work on this project. I’m quoting from out minutes. We had a number of options offered by the County Attorney about how we could provide the land. I think we weren’t ready to say exactly whether it would be a lease or what right now. We need some further time to study it.

Burns: I realize that.

Thompson: But we did verify it’s in our minutes. I guess we can do it again today that we are interested in pursuing this project and we will work out the way to provide the land.

Burns: OK.

Neuzil: I’m not committing to that at all. No.

Harney: I’m not sure we made that decision.

Stutsman: I think we expressed interest in the project. At least that’s what I thought, but I don’t think any of us were ready to…

Neuzil: In my mind if this was something that was an extension of Chatham Oaks, owned and operated by Chatham Oaks. I’d feel a lot more comfortable than bringing in a whole brand new organization onto the County Farmland. I think then we have to ask, are we opening the doors as I said in the last meeting, to every single human service agency amongst every other one wanting to say how come you gave them land, how about me. Because that’s what the question going to come back to this Board. Again, if this is something that’s Chatham Oaks, operated by Chatham Oaks, owned by Chatham Oaks, it’s an extension of Chatham Oaks, in my mind that’s a whole different story than brining in a whole new entity here.

Thompson: Well Chatham Oaks is the new entity.

Burns: Let me try to clarify that with you. I want to know what your concerns are because actually Chatham Oaks would be the entity that’s in control of development, now and forever. But a new entity would be formed in order for an investor to bring in equity capital for the development.

Neuzil: Why doesn’t that just go through Chatham Oaks.

Burns: Well the Federal Government has set up a way of funding this type of housing that involves the addition of an investor, limited partner. It’s a provision in the tax code.

Neuzil: Don’t you think other organizations would be able to use that same provision.

Burns: I think you’re right, correct. They would be able to do that. I’m not disputing the fact you may have other entities come and ask you for that.

Neuzil: We already have actually. We’ve had other human service agencies come and say do you have some available land for us, we’d like to put a facility.

Burns: I guess I understand that. We’re here to talk specifically about this type of development. That would be more of a policy decision on your part whether to go forward, but I would like to show you the proximity of this development so that you can see that it’s what I think is the issue and why we’re here this morning. If I could pass these around. The application that goes forward has to be site specific. We have to have a site or the project won’t be able to move forward so this is a critical issue.

Stutsman: OK. Are you talking about CDBG funds through the City? Is that what you’re applying for? These other funds?

Burns: It’s the same process, but they’re actually called HOME funds, which are set aside for housing. The housing funds under the HOME program are separate from the CDBG, but they allocate them in at the same time at the same process.

Stutsman: Does it go through the same process as CDBG? I’m looking at Linda Severson.

Burns: Yes.

Stutsman: OK. So it goes through, all right.

Burns: Actually CDBG funds and the home funds, because they go to different purposes, they don’t really compete with each other. This would compete with other housing type projects. But we have to show a drawing on the application of where this project would be developed. That’s why this is a policy decision for you. If you could look at the second page first. This is your master plan. A copy of your proposed land use plan for your land. You can notice that there’s a 10 acre tract that you’ve set aside for Chatham Oaks. Then just south of it is the 120 acres of a preservation area. If you see, in that part of that preservation area projects up to the eastside of Chatham Oaks.

Neuzil: Number one, this is a proposed plan. We haven’t decided on what we’re going to do yet. Number 2, I think part of the reasoning by Johnson County Council of Governments to provide the 10 acres for Chatham Oaks was to provide a buffer. It looks likes you’ve taken most of that with this new project.

Stutsman: Is that was you’re talking about. This little triangle here.

Burns: Not all of that triangle.

Neuzil: It would be still this.

Burns: If you look at the first page, you can see the existing Chatham Oaks building. Just east of that is a proposed access, which actually would be off of the current 10 acre track that is part of Chatham Oaks. That would be off of Melrose. There’s a drive coming in that we’re proposing.

Stutsman: This is the proposed one.

Burns: Yes.

Stutsman: OK. This isn’t what’s currently out there. I just need to get my bearings here.

Burns: Well the one long narrow rectangle is the existing building. It’s in very small type, but it’s Chatham Oaks. I have a larger drawing if it’s easier for you to see it.

Stutsman: Maybe that would…

Neuzil: The road leading into this new facility isn’t even connected with Chatham Oaks?

Burns: No. Actually there’s a separate entrance off of Melrose, but then it would connect to…

Stutsman: Is there 2 in there Bob or just one?

Burns: There’s 2.

Lehman: Is that an existing driveway now?

Burns: No.

Neuzil: It’s just a blow up of the current one we have there.

Burns: That’s why we’re here to answer questions. So they come up now rather than later. So if you can find the proposed new access drive, we believe it’s far enough away from the 218 access ramp that it would meet the DOT’s requirements, but we haven’t verified that with them currently, but we will. That access drive would then serve the new development, but then also connect to your existing service drive, which runs on the south side of the Chatham Oaks building. We haven’t had this surveyed and as you noted that the proposed Land Use Plan includes 10 acres for Chatham Oaks. We’re not really sure where that east boundary line is, so we can reconfigure the buildings to move them farther to the west if we had to, so you could still have a buffer between the 218 and Chatham Oaks. You can see that we’ve shown land east of the proposed new development that would be available as a buffer still.

Thompson: When Jean Spaziani was here, we asked the County’s architect to look at the land and draw us a little blueprint, remember.

Stutsman: No.

Thompson: He called me yesterday to ask what he was supposed to do so he was contacted and he’s in the process of doing it.

Stutsman: I thought we said that was premature to do that. We weren’t quite ready to do that.

Thompson: I think we told Mike to do it, because Mike called him and he said he was working on it.

Neuzil: I don’t recall. I remember the discussion, but I don’t remember if we came up with any resolution or not.

Stutsman: I thought that we had some questions first that we wanted….

Neuzil: A couple of concerns, number one, Sally and Mike, you’re the farmer types, what’s the saying where you get the, is it the cart before the horse? Is that the phrase you use? It’s hard for us to, I think it’s hard for the Board of Supervisors to make a decision on a plan like this when we haven’t even really gone through a proposed Land Use Plan for the site of the County Farm. That’s one of my concerns. Number 2, the folks at Chatham Oaks, are you prepared basically to give up any future expansion for this project? Because it’s going to be difficult for you to come up with any more. If we chose to actually go with the proposed Land Use Plan, which says 120 acres preservation area, that means a park, it means you’ve lost any opportunity for you to ever grow other than right exactly next to your building. That’s something for your board to take into consideration. This is your future, this is the land that the County potentially would give to Chatham Oaks for future growth. This is it. That’s the 2 concerns I think you folks have to think about too.

Harney: I think it even goes further than that. I have some concerns as to are we going into competition with the public sector in this service or should it be managed by Chatham Oaks on County property. Another issue there is, I’m not sure that sewer line is even large enough to handle the added services that would be needed. I think there’s a lot of questions that needs to be reviewed by legal as far as what we’re getting into before we can make a decision on this, what we’re going to do. I think we really need to get into some depth on what the proposal is and how it’s going to affect actually the County and the taxpayers of the County.

Stutsman: I think maybe that’s where I’m feeling too. I’m definitely interested and maybe what I should have clarified by saying definitely interested in more discussion and looking into this. I just, like Pat, have a lot of questions that I need to have answered in my mind before we pursue this. This is the first time I’ve seen this. I just think it would not be right for me as a Board member to make a decision on something when I have all these questions. I think we have a responsibility to the taxpayers and to this land to know exactly what this all means, not only tomorrow, but long-term for this piece of property because these decisions that are going to be made are going to have a long-term impact. I know that Chatham Oaks and the Alliance for the Mentally Ill has talked about this and thought about this for a long time, so I think you’re a lot further ahead than we are with this because you’ve had the benefits of all those years of discussion. I think the Board is saying, we want to be comfortable with this before we move on to the next step.

Lehman: Yes. Your dilemma is your deadline for a grant. We’re trying to give you some encouragement. There is a possibility of this happening, but if we’re going to tell you no, you want to know so you won’t waste any more time. I don’t know how specific your grant has to be as putting something in there to say is Chatham Oaks going to be the leaser, are you going to actually own this? That type of thing. We move pretty slow up here. Most of the time it’s for a good purpose because action we take have long-term affects as the rest of the Board has mentioned. That’s why we have to be cautious, just no giving you the green light when we might have been too optimistic and give you that impression earlier that this is a done deal. Yes, we’ve mentioned that giving the Johnson County Council of Governments to set aside some land or at least reserving that in a proposal. I hope we haven’t given you the wrong intent that it was a done deal. But I understand your dilemma too is you’ve got some grants. They need to be somewhat ironed up I think when you give your intent of what you’re asking for in a grant. That’s one of our problems. We’re not ready to give any type of a full green light, go ahead. You have to understand our position. What we do here is going to affect what other people are going to request. It’s going to lock in exactly what’s going to happen here and there’s going to be no other options for us.

Harney: The same way with entrances and things like that. I think the City has to have some input as to rather we can even put a driveway there to meet what their standards might be.

Stutsman: What are you asking for from the Board for this grant application. What does that commit us to if we… Can we say we’re interested and want to pursue it a little bit more or if we say yes, that means we’re committed to this proposal that’s before us.

Burns: As far as I see it, I think you could go forward with a letter of intent if you want to go that far to provide a site for this development. It’s contingent upon your final review of the entire project, the ownership, the sources of financing and any other contingency you want to put in. We could submit that to the City. The application’s due in January 24th, but basically that’s the first time the City sees it. They have their own evaluation process for the same reasons that you just cited. They actually don’t make their final decision until May of where the funding goes. Then the other sources of funding, the applications aren’t even due until November of this year. So we had to start somewhere and that’s why we’re here today so that you’re aware of it. We knew that you had all these decisions. We knew we’d open up all these questions. We’re just trying to have everything up on the table so everybody can see what is there and be able to discuss all the issues that you have. It may not be able to go ahead for any one of the reasons the you cited, but like I said, we have to start somewhere. The first question the City’s going to ask in the application is where is the site? If we said, well we think it’s going to be here, they’d like to know more about that information, about the site and that’s why we’re here. So I think it could be limited to a letter of intent, but you may not be even want to go that far. If you don’t offer a letter of intent, then I think the project has to just stop and we’d have to wait for another application cycle.

Lehman: We have to think of the big picture like Terrence was saying. If people assume we’re starting to parcel up the County Farm, where does the line start? We want to throw our request in there too. We have to do this very systematically. We have to look at where we want to be 10 or 15 years from now. What impact does an action we’re going to take today have on the rest of the area out there too? I appreciate your situation too. You’ve got to have some type of indication, do I move ahead here at all? Are you telling me there’s no interest at all? I’m afraid any positive response we give to you could be misleading for the future.

Burns: I can understand that. I think this development that we’re proposing, Chatham Oaks is proposing, could be on the 10 acres that you have set aside for Chatham Oaks. So I don’t think we’re asking you to expand into any of the other areas until we have it surveyed of course. But if you still haven’t adopted that Land Use Plan, maybe you can’t say that yet.

Lehman: We haven’t. That’s a misconception there that we haven’t set aside 10 acres. That was one of the proposals.

Harney: Mary is this residents from Chatham Oaks that would go into this facility or it is going to be from the general population through mental health and MH/DD or where?

Donovan: It will be both, but probably Chatham Oaks residents will be moving into the apartments.

Harney: Then others would move into Chatham Oaks?

Donovan: But we do not want to say that no one else can because it’s open for everyone.

Thompson: The apartment kind of living is a more modern way to provide care facilities than in the past. Mary Jane talk a little bit about what this would allow you to do, both with the new buildings and the old building in terms of moving people out and making the wards in the old building different.

Donovan: Well we have already started moving residents out into the community. Pat Harden has taken over that project at Chatham Oaks. We have been very successful. It’s probably because we’re monitoring them quite closely. That is why a lot of residential facilities are changing today, is because the whole idea is to give them more independence and encourage them to be more a part of the community. If we put the apartments next to Chatham Oaks and we could monitor… The residents that we get at Chatham Oaks usually come in very, very sick. Now there is even encouragement to put them into apartments also. So it would be mean some monitoring and in some cases probably frequent monitoring. But with us that close it would be very possible for us to do this. Bob has put a building up in Lee County very similar to this for the same purpose and has done quite a bit of this. That’s why he’s so familiar with the system. Right now we still have 6 people in one room, which really limits the privacy. If we started moving some of the residents out we were hoping that we could do some partitioning, something quite inexpensive to give more privacy for those very, very ill people within Chatham Oaks’ walls.

Harney: This one in Lee County, is that operated in partial on property of the County or is that just a separate facility?

Burns: It’s in Keokuk, it’s in the city limits Keokuk, but it’s supported by the County. They formed a separate non-profit corporation to act in the role that Chatham Oaks would operate this. Very similar.

Harney: The other issue is we speak about integrating individuals into the community. I’m certainly supportive of that. I see that not necessarily in the community. It’s a separate facility out there, which I could see there be a need for individuals that perhaps need more supervision as she said. I’m just kind of wondering how that really relates to integrating people into the community if they’re out where they don’t really have transportation into a community where they’re dealing with people in the libraries and so forth, other than depending on SEATS or someone like that.

Burns: Well SEATS is certainly one way of providing transportation but as I understand it anyway, there’s different levels of need for support services and support services being available close by at Chatham Oaks would be an advantage. Ultimately as people move on they may be able to be integrated in other areas of the community. I’m also not saying if there were another site somewhere else in Iowa City that that isn’t out of the question, if we had another site. The advantage of this site is it’s near the support services and if the County is willing to provide a long-term lease like a 99-year lease for a dollar, it reduces the cost of the project, which actually reduces the rents to the tenants. So it’s an advantage to them.

Donovan: Having it close to Chatham Oaks because these individuals have had so many difficulties in the past, when they’re having a difficult time in their apartment, we can bring them right over to Chatham Oaks. They can spend the night, we can try to get them leveled off again to where they can go back to their apartment the next day or so. But what’s happening now is they all keep cycling through the hospitals. They have to get very, very sick before they finally do get the help they need. We would like to see that rotation stop because every time they get so sick and go into the hospital, we have noticed and it’s so evident, that they have a very, very difficult time ever getting back to that potential that they had before. So we would really like to stop that cycling as much as possible. We felt that having everyone close to Chatham Oaks, we can monitor the medications much easier, we can be there when problems arise. There’s always a nurse on duty to take care of these things and something can be done immediately instead of waiting and letting things get to the point of disaster.

Harney: I guess the other question I have is if we provided you with a letter of intent and not locking ourselves to that, what happens if you get the money and we don’t provide that property?

Burns: The money just goes back to the City and they reallocate it some other way. If you decide not to go ahead with the project. You can say one of the reasons you want to have a letter of intent is so you can evaluate some of the same details that I’m sure the City will want to evaluate.

Harney: Perhaps it’s something we need a lengthy work session on. Andy do you have any input as far as…

Stutsman: Yes, I was going to ask Andy are there any things that we should be thinking about?

Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell: From my perspective it seems very premature to have much discussion at all about a site without having adopted or gotten much closer to adoption of a plan for what to do with the property as a whole. The 10 acres, as I recall the plan, was for some… I remember there being 2 purposes, one for any potential extension or growth that Chatham Oaks may want and 2 to provide the buffer that Terrence talked about. But even that is hopes and aspirations at this point. There’s nothing firm at all about that 10 acres. It’s just a proposal that to this point there’s been no public indication of support or lack thereof from the Board. Without anything like that it seems premature to me to be discussing any type of siting. As far as a letter of intent it all depends on how it’s written and what it says, what sort of message you want to convey by it. Even then if you are talking about getting something like that written and considered by you in a weeks time, that seems pretty expedited to me as well.

Harney: I think really I would like to have public input as far as whether to use that property for that as well. So we’d have to have a session where we had to have public input so we couldn’t really move that fast.

Stutsman: What this is coming down to is process. I know Mike you said it well, the Board moves very slowly. I went to the NAMI meeting last night and it was very informative. I was glad there but one of the things that was brought up is that we need to do another needs assessment in this community about what people need. I would feel more comfortable too with pursuing this if I could point to a current needs assessment saying this has been identified as a pressing need in this community for the County. It seems like we’re not all working together yet with what we’ve got laid out with our management plan. I just want to feel more comfortable that this is more coordinated that we’re all moving together in the same direction. I just need to have the reassurance. We just haven’t had those discussions yet.

Harney: So what would the Board like to do? Would you like to table this or do you want to put it on a work session?

Thompson: Well I think if we need to start having discussions we should start having them.

Neuzil: This really also puts hopefully we all have to hold a work session pretty soon on this proposed Land Use Plan. Let’s get moving on this. I know we’ve been hesitant on that, we’ve had a chance at least to digest the information from the Johnson County Council of Governments. We probably need to get back and get the Johnson County Council of Governments, get Jeff back in here. Get the City of Iowa City, get Chatham Oaks, get the historical society and lets kind of hammer out what we want to do with this land. I still think that is step one.

Stutsman: I guess I would agree.

Harney: Do you want to set one now or do you want to wait?

Neuzil: Well I think that Mike probably will be the one that will be coordinating that.

Thompson: Mike, when you talked with Dwight, what did he tell you?

Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan: He didn’t really tell me anything. I was asked by one of the Board members to contact him to essentially do the same thing that Mr. Burns has done, do a little site drawing of what it would like if they did this. Of course I didn’t know if this had been done.

Stutsman: Which Board member asked to see that?

Sullivan: I talked to Carol about that.

Thompson: I was still chair then and I’ve got the minutes from that meeting and it looks to me like in our discussion I said would it be good to have Dwight do that and 3 others looks like agreed that we would want to do it.

Stutsman: I don’t remember that at all. I thought we all agreed that it was a little early to do that.

Thompson: We talked about whether Dwight would cost money.

Neuzil: That would’ve been me.

Thompson: We reminded ourselves that he has a retainer from us and he could do it as part of that.

Sullivan: Otherwise he hasn’t said anything other than talking to him initially.

Stutsman: I read those minutes again too Carol and it is interpretation. But I thought they said that they weren’t ready to move to that step yet, that there are still a number of questions that we needed to have…

Thompson: I’ll call Dwight back and tell him not to…

Neuzil: Well I do like the idea that Dwight is a part of this discussion. It’s nice to have another architect.

Thompson: Yes because we might want to put another building on there. 5 acres isn’t that big. We might want to put other buildings on there, more apartments, in the future. Maybe we don’t want to take up all of the space right off the bat.

Stutsman: I guess to me it’s another thing about process, the cart before the horse and I don’t think we’re ready to have. What do we tell Dwight we want? Do we want it surveyed for the 10 acres?

Thompson: What I was thinking was kind of like the campus plan that he did for us where he said is this how many buildings could you get on this piece of property, how much parking would there need to be. Where would the road be? That kind of stuff.

Harney: I think we’ve got the request on the table. We’ve got the drawings. We can certainly have him review it. I guess I would just as soon let Mike coordinate between the Board members when we’ll have a work session and sit down and discuss it in further depth.

Stutsman: What we’re going to discuss in this work session is making some decisions about this proposed plan for the County farm from JCCOG. Is that correct?

Thompson: Should we move ahead on adopting the COG plan?

Neuzil: That’s to be determined. That’s the meeting I think we need to now say is this the plan we like from the Johnson County Council of Governments, do we want to tweak it? I just think that all of the players haven’t gotten all together including us. So lets agree on the horse.

Stutsman: So that’s what we’ll be doing at this work session is starting to move towards agreement on the horse.

Lehman: Color of the horse.

Stutsman: Then from there now that we’ve made some…

Thompson: Maybe it should be 15 acres from Chatham Oaks. Personally I don’t have that much perception of how many acres go on an acre of land. I don’t even have, like you farmers, a good conception of what an acre is.

Lehman: What is the need? Parking, open space? Service areas, that type of stuff.

Sullivan: So I have this straight. This work session will be to discuss the proposed county farm plan that has been proposed.

Stutsman: In its entirety.

Harney: Yes.

Thompson: So if we’re not able to give you a letter of intent what does that do to your planning? Postpone it out another year.

Burns: That would be the worst case scenario. I could talk to the City of Iowa City and see how they would feel about submitting an application without a site.

Johnson County Council of Governments Human Services Coordinator Linda Severson: I just have a couple of points of information. One is HOME Funds are federal dollars that are available every year. If the County didn’t feel comfortable making a commitment, I think it would give us more time to review what we want to do with the County farm property in terms of also developing policy so those dollars are available every year and I think tax credits are available every year.

Burns: The tax credits are available every year and so are the HOME dollars as long as Congress appropriates them.

Severson: Exactly, so it’s not a one time opportunity in terms of accessing those funds. I just wanted the Board to be aware of that.

Thompson: It looks like there are some other people who came here today to speak about this. Are we going to have them speak now or wait until public comment?

Stutsman: Chair, Carol said that there were some other people that were here to speak to this today.

Harney: I guess we can allow it if the Board is in agreement for public input.

Neuzil: Use the mic.

Harney: Yes, they have to come up and identify themselves and use the mic, if anyone likes to speak about this.

Stutsman: I want to just say I’ve always been very interested in this project, but I want to make sure that everybody is moving in the same direction. It’s going to take some energy and some coordination and some meetings, but I think in the end it will be a much more satisfactory proposal for everybody. That’s what I want, is just that we are all moving in the same direction.

Burns: We’re not discouraged. At least I’m not. We’re perennial optimists. We knew that there would be a lot of questions and we thought that we had to start. The best way to start is to make a proposal. We’ll be working with you as we go forward. We’ll be back. Thank you.

Harney: Dr. Lumin?

Dr. Lowell Lumin: I’m Dr. Lowell Lumin. I think for those of us who have been working on this project for 10 years, this of course gets a bit discouraging to hear your delay in working on this process. Also, the mentally ill that would be in this type of housing, it’s been needed, we’ve been working on this for 10 years, are anxious for this proceed. But, I see your concerns in developing this whole project. It seems so ideal and every time we’ve looked at other properties, other ways of financing this that it never would have worked out. The cost gets so great when you look at property downtown or near inner town. It always fell back to the fact that if we could achieve this ground near Chatham Oaks and on your County property and had a low lease cost that this would be so much more feasible. I think more importantly, the services that would be available from Chatham Oaks supporting this would be so terribly much more important that it could be so much more available and financially more feasible with being so close to the facility as trying to go to 10 different apartments or 16 different apartments scattered all over town. It seems to me like a very illogical way to try to provide services of this sort. This is a level between the usual apartment living and residential care that we hoped that this would be a more careful follow up of these people. Particularly in the fact of taking medications, which is so extremely important in this population. The reason they recycle and have problems is they always stop their medication. This would be one thing that even on a daily basis this could be checked on by having this facility. I wish we would have been able to get moving faster, but of course we’ve been at it 10 years and things move along slowly. Like I say, it’s a bit discouraging to wait another year, but if that is what it requires, why we are going to keep supporting this. That’s from NAMI and from Chatham Oaks and from all of us that have been working on it. Thank you.

Harney: Thank you, anyone else?

Rosemary Friedrich: Rosemary Friedrich. I just want to second what Lowell said. I don’t think you could have said it better. The need exists. There are people who are still quite ill who honestly can’t make it in independent apartment living. That’s the ideal goal. But, a lot of people are just too ill to make it and therefore they recycle into very expensive services, which often cost the taxpayer $1,000 a day in the hospital. Really, this whole idea is a very economical thing. The goal is to provide services so that they don’t recycle, which is very expensive, so that they can have a quality of life. There is nothing like it in Iowa City. We don’t have an apartment building for people who are mentally ill, where they can live together. When I surveyed over 300 family members and clients in Johnson County a couple of years ago, one of the greatest unmet needs is social isolation. Ideally we want people who are mentally ill to be friends with everybody around them, especially those who are the most ill just can’t do it and they don’t. Often they are isolated and they have nobody to relate to. This apartment, and they have such a thing in Grinnell and now in Keokuk, in various parts of the State this is working well for people in other communities. So, we encourage you to continue to examine the issue and hopefully to support it. Thank you very much.

Harney: Thank you. Is there anyone else?

Dr. Lumin: Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Harney: Is there Business from the County Attorney?

Chappell: No business today.

Harney: Next item is Business from the Board of Supervisors. Discussion/action needed referencing Contract Award for State Reimbursement to Counties for Substance Abuse funding Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 in the amount of $10,000. Mike, do you want to review that for us?

Sullivan: Sure. This is something that the Board of Supervisors does annually. This is grant money that comes from the State of Iowa, that are funds that are available to counties for substance abuse prevention efforts. As you may recall, the Iowa Code provides that one-half of the proceeds from Sunday beer and liquor permits are used for grants to counties operating substance abuse programs involving only education, prevention, referral and post-treatment services. So, these dollars are not for treatment services. The counties either contract this through a not-for-profit or they do this themselves. We choose to contract through MECCA. The grants annually do not exceed $10,000 per County. The County will contribute 3 County dollars for every State dollar in this grant. You have done this in the past. So, we will be asking for $10,000 from the State and then our contribution would be $30,000. I’ll have the application completed. The only thing that changes on the contract again is just that it’s Fiscal Year 2004. So, what I will have on your agenda next week would be the completed application with the contract to submit to the State. The deadline is March 25th, but I wanted to get an early start on this. If you have any other questions, let me know.

Harney: Thank you. That will come on our next agenda.

Sullivan: Yes, I will put that on for next week.

Harney: Then discussion reference Scheduling a meeting with Cedar Rapids City Officials. This, Sally had requested we put this on. Do you want to cover that Sally?

Stutsman: Right. We have talked from time to time about getting together with Cedar Rapids individuals. An issue came to my attention. Excuse me, are you Mr. Hamilton.

Steve Hamilton: Yes I am, Sally.

Stutsman: OK. Thank you. Mr. Hamilton called me about an article that appeared in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, concerning Cedar Rapids taking over 965 a mile into Johnson County. I wasn’t aware of this. I did some contact with Secondary Roads, with Planning & Zoning. Nobody else knew anything.

Neuzil: That’s because it was in Cedar Rapids.

Stutsman: It was in the Metro Cedar Rapids edition.

Neuzil: That was never in our newspaper here.

Hamilton: Of course not.

Stutsman: So, Mr. Hamilton was kind enough to send me a copy of the article. I circulated it. So, Mike Gardener has had some initial contact with the City Engineer in Cedar Rapids. What it brought to my attention was that I think we need to sit down and talk with City Officials in Cedar Rapids and see what the plans are for this 965 corridor. It seems like the logical process if some community takes over ownership of a road into another county, the next logical step is annexation or so it would seem. I think we need to just sit down and see, visit with Cedar Rapids and just see what their plans are. Just so that we are informed and to allow Johnson County residents to express their concerns or whatever about what the plans are. So, I put this on the agenda, just because we as a Board need to decide how we want to approach this. Whether we want to sit down with a small work group of Johnson County staff, Cedar Rapids staff, a couple of Board members or if we want to have a public meeting with all of the Supervisors plus Cedar Rapids City Council and their staff. Just how would be the best way to approach it. First of all, do you feel there is a need to go ahead with a meeting with the people with Cedar Rapids?

Lehman: I think we need to have a meeting or some type of correspondence. 3 years ago we met with representatives from Cedar Rapids. Joe Raso is here this morning from Iowa City Area Development. I don’t know if he has any input with the sister organization, Priority One of Cedar Rapids, when they talk about the tech corridor and it all falls into that area. If Joe doesn’t have anything to add this morning, I think they need to be a player in some of this future discussion, too.

Iowa City Area Development Director Joe Raso: Usually, our involvement on the transportation side isn’t as detailed as the discussions that the County staffs and the City staffs would have. But, bringing up the issue of 965, I know in our trip to Washington D.C. in February, as we are planning that with the businesses and elected officials in Johnson County, I am talking to our congressional staffs. One of the issues that came up on transportation was the winding of 965. That was one of the issues that Johnson County or Cedar Rapids brought up. Now, where that would take place, I am not privy to that. I don’t have information on that.

Harney: My idea is I think we need to have contact with Linn County or Cedar Rapids officials and talk with them. I think Secondary Roads should also be a part of that.

Gardner: Just a little clarification, I had not spoken with the City Engineer of Cedar Rapids. I was talking to the District Engineer from the DOT.

Stutsman: Thank you Mike for clarifying that.

Gardner: He is involved with the transfer.

Stutsman: It has been transferred?

Gardner: No. What he told me initially was that it was to be done in April, was what their timetable was. When I asked if that portion that is in Johnson County had been annexed, his initial statement was it would take place prior to the transfer. He called me back and said it didn’t appear that the annexation was going to occur that quickly, so the transfer within Johnson County would not be occurring. He then called me back later and said he was getting conflicting opinions from their legal staff as to whether or not it could be. So he said that the information that he had given me the day before might be incorrect and they still may transfer the section within Johnson County to Cedar Rapids even without it being annexed.

Thompson: Where does it stop? How far south does it go?

Gardner: What they were proposing was to go to 120th Street. The interchange there at Swisher and Shueyville.

Stutsman: The 4 corners there.

Gardner: Right, yes, the 4 corners.

Lehman: Just for clarification right now, the City Limits of Cedar Rapids are a mile north, approximately.

Hamilton: It’s much more than a mile. I believe it’s more than a mile.

Lehman: I think as you travel 380 down, you’ll see a sign that says Cedar Rapids City Limits and then it’s about a mile on to the exit there at Swisher and Shueyville. I may be wrong but I think that’s what I was explaining the 4’s on.

Thompson: When we met with them before, they showed us that map that had that little piece of Johnson County annexed and we asked if they would be willing to right a Fringe Area Agreement with us and they said not yet. Do you think it’s time to ask again?

Neuzil: Yes. I think it’s a great idea. I’m glad Sally you brought this up. I like to know what Cedar Rapids is up to. If they are talking about coming on into Johnson County, it would be at least cordial for them to let the Board of Supervisors know.

Thompson: We can’t stop them, right?

Neuzil: No. Well, Andy would know more about this. But, as far as city development boards, they don’t really care where county lines are, I don’t think.

Harney: I believe at one time they suggested they may even be wanting to provide water to the community of Shueyville. So, I think we really need to sit down, maybe have a couple of the Board Members, the Secondary Roads staff and maybe perhaps Joe Raso.

Lehman: Maybe a member of the Linn County Board of Supervisors, too. I’ve run into them like the rest of us have at the Iowa State Association of Counties and they’ve never mentioned it. So, I don’t think it’s been on their radar screen as such either. That’s property they are going to be giving up. But, I don’t think they’ve had any notification either from the City of Cedar Rapids if they intend to take that over either.

Thompson: So, you’re thinking 2 of us and Mike and Al and maybe some Planning people?

Neuzil: Just to start with and then eventually that group getting together. Whenever you do these they are so ceremonial that everyone is afraid to say too much.

Lehman: That stops you Terrence from saying something?

Neuzil: No, I still open my mouth.

Raso: If I could add, the interest on my part of dealing especially with the County in the last year has been the work that Terrence and Carol and several of us have done on the County Economic Development Plan, which I believe copies just went out. I just received mine this morning before coming over here. It calls for looking at sections within the County.

Neuzil: Right on that 4 corner?

Raso: Right on that 4 corner is one of those areas.

Stutsman: It seems like we just need to sit down and communicate with one another instead of having this, gee, nobody knew anything about it. So, it sounds like we want to have a small group.

Harney: Maybe that’s too large if we put 2 of our Board Members and whomever.

Stutsman: No, I think that’s a good start.

Harney: We’ll let Mike coordinate that for us then.

Stutsman: Are there Board members that want to volunteer to participate?

Neuzil: Who are our reps for dealing with… Pat you’ve worked with Shueyville. That might be a good starting point as far as the Fringe Area Agreement with them, because you just did that. That might be a good connection to start with.

Thompson: As Chair I think it would be good. You would be the logical person.

Lehman: Someone from the Economic Development want to make contact?

Stutsman: Right. Terrence do you want to?

Neuzil: I just think as far as staff goes, I think Dan Swartzendruber would be the one you’d want to at least, because he’s the one that kind of helped author that as far as the County side. I would be happy to do that. If some other Board member wants to do that, that is fine, too. Mike, you all just let me know.

Stutsman: Who do we want to meet with up there?

Harney: I imagine it would have to be someone from the Board of Supervisors and then whatever planning department. Would you know Joe?

Stutsman: Yes, Joe do you have any ideas?

Raso: Priority One, as a division of the Chamber, I don’t believe their staff has the same type of relationship with their planning as ICAD would have with this Board. So, I don’t know if anybody from that organization… But, I would assume that the City staff and the County staff would definitely be involved in that.

Neuzil: The City of Cedar Rapids certainly has a map of where they plan to grow in the next 20 years, too.

Lehman: So, we can contact the Mayor and he may have someone he would designate as their representative at a preliminary meeting, the Mayor of Cedar Rapids.

Harney: We’ll let Mike make those contacts and get it arranged for us.

Neuzil: This is a good example of a resident that actually alerts us to something and this is how these things… Thank you for doing that. This is why this is happening. It’s because your alertness was, hey, wait a second, we’ve got to figure out what is going on here. Is Cedar Rapids going to take over parts of Johnson County or what? So, thanks.

Hamilton: Can I have a few minutes to speak here?

Harney: We have a time at the end where you can have time to speak. This is not necessarily a public hearing at this point on the informal. But, there is a time at the end of our meeting here for you to speak.

Stutsman: It won’t be much longer.

Harney: The next item is discussion/needed in reference to videotaping the Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Planning Council Meetings.

Thompson: I’m sorry. This is premature to have it on our Board Meeting. It was on the Planning Council Meeting agenda for last time and at that point, Mike wasn’t sure that anyone would agree to air tapes if we made them. We do know that it would cost $2,500 a year to tape the meetings. But, in the meantime he has discovered that there are actually people who we could get them aired around the County and it would go back on the Planning Council agenda for next month and then it would come to the Board. I think the Planning Council wanted to discuss it further when they found out if there was actually a market for it.

Neuzil: That makes sense.

Harney: So, we’ll defer this until a later meeting then.

Lehman: The expense would come out of the Mental Health budget.

Neuzil: Yes. That is to be determined.

Thompson: I think there was some thought that it could come out of Central Services because all of the Board members participate.

Stutsman: Is this on the agenda for Tuesday’s Planning Council?

Thompson: It should be. Is it?

Sullivan: I don’t know. I don’t set those agendas.

Stutsman: I got a copy of it but I don’t remember. Maybe we should make sure that it is on.

Thompson: It might have to be postponed until the following month. But, it wouldn’t start until July anyway. So, we have time to talk about it.

Harney: The next item is Reports and Inquiries from the Board. Carol, do you want to start?

Thompson: Sure. All of us have been in budget meetings this week, so that is one of the things that take up a lot of our time at this time of year. On Monday I also attended the GIS Coordination Meeting. This is the meeting that Rick Havel has with the other entities that might use our GIS system. Again, it was a very good meeting. I feel like there is a lot of give or take between the participants. Other people are allowing us to use maps that they are making and we in turn will share our maps with them. It looks like the Committee is going to recommend that we not have a fee for other governmental entities using our maps, because they so often share with us. But, there will be a proposal coming to the Board soon that would set a fee for selling our data to people who might use it, like abstracting agencies or insurance companies who want to check flood plains or groups like that. On Monday I also met with Ruth Bonfiglio and Lenny Hale from the League of Women Voters. I believe they will be talking with all of us about our views on consolidated government. That was an interesting discussion. Then, also on Monday we all attended a work session on contracting regarding the MH/DD Department. Later that afternoon I attended the Senior High Alternative Center Advisory Committee, which I have been a member of for a couple of years now. There is quite a lot of enthusiasm about the proposed bond issue. I was also very pleased to notice that they are projecting to graduate 25 students this year. We all remember some years when not that many graduated. I think that school, as it has been reorganized, has been very successful and it is helping a lot of kids to finish school. Also, on Monday, I had a busy Monday. The Board met with the Planning & Zoning Department and the Commission about the North Corridor Plan. On Tuesday, the Courthouse Security Committee met and I want to elaborate on that a bit because I know we have had some questions about that lately. We are using a plan from Plymouth County, which the State selected and recommended us to use because it’s very efficient. It doesn’t call for a lot of extra staff or anything. It looked at their Courthouse and it said these are policies that we need to have in place and it recommended some fairly minor changes to the building. I think that is what this Committee is going to propose initially. Some of the things that have already been discussed are the need for new locks in the building. The locks that are on those doors, I would guess some of them are original to the building and others probably date back to the 40’s. One thing they don’t allow you to do is close a door and lock it behind you, which might be necessary sometimes in certain situations. So, I think David Kempf put in his budget for this year, enough money to change all of the locks. The Committee will probably be recommending a number of rather small things like that. We also looked at procedures, like fire drills and tornado drills and bomb threat drills. This correlates with the Safety Committee’s work because they have also been doing those things for all County buildings. David Kempf has done a really good job at helping the Security Committee coordinate their work with the Safety Committee. The final plan won’t be done for this year’s budget, but the judge did indicate that he intends to have a plan ready for our next year’s budget in November. So, that is when we will be hearing from them. Then, yesterday, the Board met to discuss the employee handbook. That was a good discussion I thought. Also, I had an orientation for serving on the MECCA Board in the afternoon. That was my week.

Neuzil: You had a busy week.

Harney: Thank you.

Harney: Mike.

Lehman: I had an opportunity to speak at 2 different Mrs. Beth Levokers government classes at Regina during the week. Worked that around our budget process. She had sent me a list of questions that the kids had submitted and it was interesting some of the confusion that they had between City and County government jurisdiction. So, I had a chance to speak a little bit about 28E’s, Fringe Area Agreements, things like that. Basically, I went over the description of the process for our County government and some of the issues that we are facing, such as the jail overcrowding and budget dilemmas we are having this year. Tuesday, Sally and I met with Elaine Sweet, Director of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. As liaisons, we visit with her. She got to explain a little bit more in depth of the process that CRIS, which is the County Rate Information Services, do to obtain their figures from the providers. She explained to us that the providers actually send their information to CRIS themselves and an employee of Eide Bailley, the accounting firm, monitors those and comes up with the final numbers. She also said she hopefully will have an Administrative Assistant person in place here before too long. That should help quite a bit with her organizational process and time restraints that she has had. She also said that Quilogy, which is the financial software that we had purchased from or are partners with Polk County…still working on that but there will be some demonstrations in Des Moines February 7th, to other counties who now have an interest in purchasing this system or using their operations. Last night Sally and I were able to attend the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. I think it was very enlightening for me. I think Sally had a little bit more of a background on it. But, they really didn’t ask us that many questions, but it was enlightening to hear the different aspects of their concerns of many of the people out there. One of the things they talked about was the need for shelter. There are some grants, but some of those require local matches. So, there again, our limited funding becomes a problem. It was interesting that evening, the people that they are seeing that are showing up at some of these sites for meals and that type of stuff, one of the questions was, is this a state of mind that people have learned to live this way where they know where meals are at. They have found a place just to stay overnight and stuff. How much help or how do we contact these people to institute a program that if they really so desire shelter can we give it to them. It’s a state of mind. Some of these people just don’t… That’s their way of life. They don’t seem to need that. They also talked about the stigma of mental illness. There is a need for awareness. It is a fact of life. It’s here. It’s just like the awareness of AIDS. People are aware of that. They deal with it now and the need of rather shutting people out or shunning people from mental illness, we need to work with them to make their quality of life better. They have a lot of unmet needs and many, many person fall through the cracks of the system. How do you put a safety net under these people so that if they do desire help, that they can get it. It also falls under the fact that the admission about choice. Some of these individuals, such as the people at the shelter, they choose not to ask for help and when the different available things are… They still have a choice of which ones they may, which alternative choice of help they may want to take. Sally touched on a little bit of the Needs Assessment. In 1996 a Needs Assessment was done. It needs to probably be updated, but I think they’ve felt that the criteria, the results would be somewhat the same as far as recreational housing and varied jobs. Those needs probably haven’t changed. But, it gets back to how do you answer those needs. I talked to Charlie Funk, who is on the Committee for the Iowa City School Board referendum. It’s called the Yes for Kids. I did a little straw poll for the Board here and he is going to be on the Informal next week to do a short presentation to the Board, we will be seeing him next week. That’s all I have.

Harney: Thank you.

Harney: Sally. Just a short report because people have already covered some of the things I was going to talk about. Mike did a great job talking about the OMNI Meeting last night. I was glad to be there. I think it just kind of talks to the importance of getting out in the community and hearing what people have to say. The session was just a brainstorming session about unmet needs in the community. So, it was real valuable to get that kind of feedback. I just want to mention, Pat and I met with Steve Spenler yesterday, Director of the Ambulance Department. He has set up a meeting with Mike and Jeff to talk about our request to look into a taxing authority for the Ambulance Service. They are just going to get some preliminary information and bring it back to the Board to see if that is something we want to seriously consider or pursue. He and Dave Dvorsky, the Assistant Ambulance Director, will be going to a State conference in Des Moines at the end of February, where they will talk about the overview of the EMS grant process and HIPAA and systems development. Then finally, Steve was asked to and has agreed to serve on the Kirkwood Community College Fire Sciences Advisory Board. I think that is a good positive step for Steve. He’ll just be helping with curriculum and things. They were interested in having someone from Emergency Services. So, Steve will fill that role. That’s all I have.

Harney: Thank you.

Harney: Terry.

Neuzil: As all of the Board Members said, we’ve had a very busy week working on budgets and working on areas of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, working in areas of Human Resources. A couple of things that I will be working on this coming week will be meeting… Pat Harney and I will be meeting with David Kempf, our Facilities Director. I wanted to point out, Mike, do you remember what he just got certified in? It’s something real special.

Sullivan: Certified Facilities Management. He’s a Certified Facilities Manager.

Neuzil: We all say congratulations to David for accomplishing that. We’ll be meeting with him. Communications Meeting is tomorrow. Then, also, I’ll be a new member of the SEATS Advisory Board and that meeting will be held at 11:00 on Friday. Today I will be meeting with the League of Women Voters. I want to assure the community that I am not in any way, shape, or form willing to be supportive of getting rid of the Board of Supervisors in exchange for a 25 member all-wide city council. So, that is part of my meeting today. I think that they will get that message across. So, that’s a few of the things we’ve been working on and a few of the things I’ll be working on.

Harney: Thank you Terry. You’re right, it’s been a busy week.

Harney: Mike Lehman and I met last week also with Tom Brase, the SEATS Director. We went over some things. They are still working on their computer system. Stratagen is up and working a lot better. They still have a few little glitches in it, but it has really been a big improvement. They are currently scheduling about 400 rides per day and it was about 325 a year ago, so it has really increased. So, they are busy and they are working on their contracts with Coralville and U. Heights. As the others said, we had a work session with the MH/DD staff and their providers last week. We also had a work session with the Planning & Zoning Commission and the staff on the North Corridor issue. That was a very productive meeting. Sally and I attended the Chamber Ag Committee Meeting and the week of July 21st will be the 4-H Fair. They are going to have the tractor pull the first night. They will be scheduling all of those events. It should be coming out before long. They have most everything in place. They are also beginning the Chamber Ag breakfast at the Montgomery Hall at the Fairgrounds. The first one is Friday, January 31st at 7:00 a.m. These are going to be some very interesting breakfasts and they have presentations by individuals with those, one on bio-mass and the productions and the things that you can make out of corn stalks and corn and other products in Iowa. It’s a real interesting major in topics. The one I think on the 31st is going to be by Greg Brenneman and his topic is going to be Preparing Yourself for the Challenge of the Year 2003. I attended also the annual Chamber of Commerce Banquet. There was about 350 people there. It was a very interesting program and a good evening. Sally and I, as she mentioned the Ambulance Director, she covered that very well. Other than it’s just been a busy week. I met with numerous individuals on jail issues, the North Corridor issues, road issues, the 5-Year Road Plan and Muslim Youth Camp. It seems like it’s been a real busy week and everyone has a particular interest in certain areas. It’s good to get that feedback. It’s very interesting to get feedback from individuals who really don’t come to the Board and speak publicly but they sure like to let you know what their views are on particular issues. Particularly up in the North Corridor and the possible road changes up there. There is a lot of support for changes as well as there are ones that we see daily in here of people who are against it. That has been my week.

Harney: Next up is Inquiries and Reports from the Public. So, here is your opportunity to speak, Mr. Hamilton.

Hamilton: Thank you.

Harney: Come up and give your name.

Hamilton: I’m Steve Hamilton and I currently live on Highway 965 north of the Swisher 4-way stop. Before we go any further, I must say that I have a new appreciation for the workload of the County Supervisors. It goes from A-Z. I have a great deal of concerns about the City of Cedar Rapids owning property in Johnson County. It’s pretty obvious that if they have control over this road, they also have control over all future development on either side of this road. It’s also, I believe, safe to say that Cedar Rapids is in a very big growth mode. Bigger is better. They would just as soon have factories, whatever, housing developments, along that road versus having it a cornfield. I believe that the Johnson County Land Use for the Corridor is much more primitive, correct me if I am wrong here. I believe it’s agriculture. I think you have come out and stated that. So, I think there is a major conflict right there. I think there is a number of somewhat trivial problems I have with this. My address is probably going to change, which is going to be detrimental to my business. I am very pleased with road maintenance at this time, snow removal and so forth. I doubt very much if the City is going to match this. That is to be seen in the future, of course. I have no representation. I am in Johnson County. I don’t vote for anyone in Cedar Rapids. Somewhat trivial, but I think it’s not, looking down the road, I think it’s pretty obvious that the City of Cedar Rapids would love to annex both sides of 965 and controlling the road is the first step in this. I think it was stated earlier that there is nothing that Johnson County Supervisors can do to stop this. Is that true?

Harney: Andy, from the County Attorney’s Office could address that, hopefully.

Chappell: I don’t believe that’s a question I can really answer because I don’t know what this is, at this point. I don’t know what Cedar Rapids is planning. I don’t know. All I have heard is that there was an article about Cedar Rapids potentially taking over responsibility for part of the road, even that doesn’t tell me all that much. I think the perception that the City Development Board’s first concern with regard to annexation request is probably not County boundaries is probably a good one. But, beyond that it is hard to speculate. I usually don’t get into speculating whether we can do anything to stop or hinder or affect anyone else’s plans with regard to anything, unless I see some sort of plan or some sort of proposal.

Harney: The only other thing, I would make a statement to you is that, it’s not unprecedented for someone to come in and take some property in Johnson County. West Branch has annexed some property in Johnson County. West Branch has annexed some property in Johnson County as well. They are actually a City of Cedar County community initially.

Hamilton: Right. Perhaps one difference is that it’s a congenial annexation or congenial community there between the 2 counties. I’m not quite so sure if it is the same here. As I mentioned earlier, the Land Use change is in direct conflict. What is your opinion on this? Do you have an opinion yet?

Harney: Well, in an informal session like this, you can speak, but we really can’t deliberate back and forth on that. So, you can make your statements and we really can’t debate what the issue is.

Hamilton: That is fine. Fair enough. I really don’t have anything else to say that I think would be constructive. In closing, I did contact Rob Davis, who I believe should be invited to this meeting. I believe that was the person’s name in the article.

Stutsman: I’d have to go back and look.

Hamilton: Well, if you want. Anyway, I did contact Rob Davis. I believe he is the City Engineer, on the 20th of December. As of Monday, he had not got back with me on some questions I had on this. So, I phoned him back and I think that is just a real typical response I am going to get. I asked him something a month later, 25 days later, whatever it was, there is still no response. I can see that happening in the future. I think it is pretty obvious from my opinion that I am adamantly opposed to this transfer. I don’t think that is going to get too far, but that is my opinion. In closing, there is an article in today’s Cedar Rapids Gazette talking about a housing development. I think it gives a real good microcosm of what the City of Cedar Rapids is all about. I am going to leave this here with you. Please read it. It’s yours for the taking, but it is basically what the City of Cedar Rapids is all about. If you don’t already know, I think that article kind of sums it up. Thank you for your time.

Stutsman: Thank you.

Harney: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Joe?

Raso: Joe Raso, with Iowa City Area Development. My initial reason for being here this morning was, and I was planning on having some discussions I think on the Economic Development Plan. But received early this morning a note saying that that was going to be moved to probably some time in February I believe, maybe the 13th or something. So, I’ll see if that can fit within my schedule to be available to you, since I have been involved in those planning processes. Since I am here today, if it’s OK with the Board, I would like to just provide you with just a little update on some of the activities we have had if that is appropriate. If not I could schedule a different time for that.

Harney: No, that’s fine.

Raso: It would just take a few minutes to do.

Harney: If you’d like to have a seat, you certainly may.

Raso: It would be easier. First and foremost, I want to thank Mike Lehman for his time that he’s served on the Board. I’ve been here since November of 2000 and Mike’s been your representative on the ICAD Board throughout that time. Also, to welcome Carol to the ICAD Board. You’ll get orientation by fire I think tomorrow morning at your first Board meeting. Learned about this last week, so I apologize for not having the time to maybe sit down one on one. But after that meeting, if you have any questions, we’d love to meet with you one on one to answer any questions that you might have. Over the past 6 to 12 months, the course of action that we’ve taken is fallen in line similar to the work we’ve done in the past, but I wanted to update you on just a few items that we’re addressing in our areas, our core competencies. That’s workforce development, existing industry services and recruitment. I’d just touch on briefly some of our prospect activity. I have here a copy of our activity report, our most recent one. You may have seen this in the past and attended our annual meeting the middle of last year, but I wanted to provide you with another copy of that at this time. It gives a good background on the activity that happened up through, really July of last year. Since that time there’s been a number of projects that we’ve assisted on. Some that fall outside of the County because as you mentioned, the Community of West Branch and Cedar County as a community we represent… But the Proctor & Gamble project is, as you all know, has been a very big project for the entire region with their 500,000 square foot distribution center that’s near completion. Hopefully we’ll see some additional growth out of Proctor & Gamble there, but because of the decisions that Proctor & Gamble’s made in the last year, we’ve also seen Owens, Illinois construct a facility here in Iowa City and they’ve already expanded more than double their size. If you go out to the industrial park on Scott, 6 Boulevard, you’ll see the shell of their building. I think right now it’s about 145,000 square feet facility. Oppla Manufacturing is another company. Both of these businesses serve Proctor & Gamble, and P & G themselves in Johnson County, has invested quite a bit of money on new facilities or additions to their existing plant. So that project and kind of the fingers coming out from P & G has done and the assistance that we’ve been able to provide, I think long-term’s going to mean a real benefit to the tax base and to the overall growth of our economy here. In the area of workforce development, there are some things that will be coming out, you’ll be seeing in the next 2 to 6 months. We are completing and at this point in time, printing a wage and benefits survey that will allow our companies a better feel for what are the existing wages and benefits for different positions here in our region. That was done in conjunction with Priority 1 and the Technology Corridor. We also should have completion by the end of next month a labor shed study. Actually taking a look at where people commute to work within our 2 metropolitan areas. If you haven’t seen the map of this yet, we’ll have a press conference on it, but we go as far east as the Quad Cities, as far south as Mount Pleasant, north up to Blackhawk, east over to Delaware County and west even over as far as Tama. So it’s a very large area from which we’re pulling our work force to be employed with employers here in our area. What the results of this study will allow us to do is to better give our existing companies the opportunity when they’re looking to grow, what are the wages they feel they need to pay or is there enough people in the market for the wages they want to pay for positions? What are the benefits? When we’re recruiting companies into the area, a lot of times, that’s the number one issue they have. Do you have the available skilled work force to meet my needs? Through the work of this labor shed analysis, we’d be able to provide them with that data. We’re also doing a what we call skills 2000 update. Rather than just looking at what the employees tell us, we’re going to our employers here in the next 4 to 6 months and really asking them what do you see as your growth as you go out. Are there going to be people retiring? Are you going to be adding new jobs? What are the skills needed for those jobs? Do you feel that you have the skill sets in the people that you’re employing now? So this will allow us to take the labor shed data and the skills 2000 update data and merge those to give us a real good sense of what work force we have. What skills do they have to meet the employers needs and if they don’t, how can they get training either through community college, the University, other colleges in this area and even K-12 curriculum? We have an employment directory that will allow people on very short notice to really get basic information about 250 of the largest employers in our region. That will be coming out here in the next few months. We’ll be conducting a career fair. Right now the date of that career fair looks like it will be April 5th, allowing our companies who are employing people or want the community and the students who are graduating from the colleges to know a little bit more about the job opportunities in this area. So just in work force development there’s a lot of activity that’s taking place through our organization and in partnership with many others. As I mentioned earlier, we’ve been working closely with you on the County Economic Development Plan and be available, hopefully, I think on the 13th if I’m going to be in town to work with you on that or answer any questions that you might have about that. We are very happy to see the Governor’s comments earlier this week in his Condition of the State report, about his focus on economic development and also about the initiative that he’d like to undertake with looking at our existing tax code. It’s really a challenge when we’re out talking to individuals and to companies that don’t know a lot about the Iowa tax system and trying to explain to them. In fact, many times you need to bring an accountant just to explain to them, rollback and Federal deductibility and all these other factors that are key to our overall tax structure. When people more and more are looking for information on the Internet, they may not even contact you, they may just bypass you because they see that the tax rate is 12% or the personal income tax rate is at 9.8%. Those types of things. They don’t look at the effective rate. So those are things that we’re very happy to see happening at Des Moines. We’re going to work closely with our legislative leaders and making sure that their initiatives that are being looked at and policies and laws that are being passed that make it easier for business to do business in this State, thus generating more tax dollars for taxing bodies like the cities and the County and the State. Then in terms of some of the existing industry and recruitment strategies that are in place, we are in process and should be rolling out in the next 3 to 4 months, a building and site database. I believe Mike, if you were at our last board meeting, you saw the makeup of that system. What that will allow is online, anyone at any time to search the available industrial sites that ICAD services and available buildings and properties and working with the real estate community here in the area so that somebody could do a search. Say they need a 5-acre site, they need it to be within 10 miles of an airport, within 4 miles of an Interstate and they can put those criteria in the system and it will search the database and bring up the properties that meet those criteria, which really helps on the front end in getting that process moving, because about 80% of projects usually are looking for existing sites that meet their needs or buildings. So with that kind of information along with County and Community information that we’re going to provide on your behalf and also give you access so your staff can update information as things change. We’ll have a site that will be very organic; they’ll be a lot of changes to it. It will be accurate and updated, essentially instantly by the people who have the information. So those are just a few of the things that we’ve been working on as a development group on your behalf and the other investors that we have in ICAD. I don’t know if you have any questions for me. You guys are making it easy.

Thompson: It was a thorough report.

Harney: Thank you, it was very informative.

Raso: Well, thank you.

Stutsman: Terrific.

Harney: Does anyone else wish to speak? Adjourn the meeting.

Adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary