MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SEPTEMBER 18, 1997
Part 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Review of Minutes and Canvass of Votes from the School Board Election
Discussion: Review of Draft Budget Memo for FY99
Report (Lacina): Met with Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Dale Cochran
Report (Jordahl): Attended Sustainable Communities Conference in Des Moines
Report (Stutsman): Attended Sustainable Communities Conference in Des Moines
Reverend Bob Welsh: Attended Human Services Meeting in Des Moines
Report (Duffy): Resignation of Kathy Berry
Work Session: Review of Proposed Land Use Plan
Environmental Protection Goals
Future Land Use Goals and Strategies
Agriculture Protection (see Part 2)
Residential Development (see Part 2)
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:00 a.m. Members present were: Joseph Bolkcom, Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally Stutsman.
REVIEW OF MINUTES AND CANVASS OF VOTES FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION
Stutsman: I would like to call to order the informal meeting of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors for September 18th, 1997. Review of the formal minutes for the September 11th and the canvass of votes for the school election for September 12. I think Mark brought up a slight correction to the formal minutes of September 11th, but other than that they seemed to be in order. So if there are no other comments, we'll put those on for action during the formal meeting.
DISCUSSION: REVIEW OF DRAFT BUDGET MEMO FOR FY '99
Stutsman: Business from the Board of Supervisors, discussion regarding review of the draft budget memo for fiscal year 99. We are going to present this to the department head meeting next Tuesday and I wanted to Board to look this over and see if this was OK as is, if there were any changes or additions that they wanted to make. I don't know if you all have had a chance to see that memo. Jo made copies for everybody. Do you have it Steve?
Lacina: No I don't.
Stutsman: Oh, is it in there?
Lacina: I read it in the back. I just don't have it with me right now.
Stutsman: OK, all right.
Bolkcom: It seems to be well stated here. One of the question that I would have, I think it says it here, but that may be in the top bold stuff there is an item list, any line item changes, and then in the next paragraph it talks about decreases, for example if we'd funded something, a special project or a special request last year that is a non-recurring expense. I think we should be clear about we really want to see those detailed. I think it says that here, changes in line items, but I want to make sure that if say we bought a car for Health or something, that we're not going to be in the budget next year, that that's pulled out and set aside.
Duffy: Good idea.
Bolkcom: In some sort of detail. It does kind of indicate that there but it was... maybe a little clearer.
Stutsman: Do you think it needs to be a little more in detail to make that change. I didn't know if we wanted to add anything to the fact that we aren't in the budget freeze this year, but I think we are going to give directions for department heads to be careful when they budget not to go way overboard that we need to be cautious so that we don't have a big spike in property tax or whatever.
Bolkcom: I agree.
Lacina: Because the legislature will be watching what we do. They are announcing this to all of the Supervisors across the state, so this isn't the time... There will be some counties that will have to make some major adjustments but we do have to be very careful to use the dollars efficiently and not just now that the freeze is off, let everything go. So maybe that would be a good addition of a sentence, just simply saying even though the freeze is off, we need to be responsible to the tax payers, and we'll be holding the line pretty close.
Stutsman: OK.
Duffy: That's right.
Jordahl: There's room kind of between the lines in this memo for there to be some changes in the format of reporting. But there's no statement that I'd discern here that says you know there will be some differences. We've discussed the possibility of there being differences at some length. I'm wondering how this memorandum in its present form fits in with that discussion.
Lacina: Has the Auditor put out the budget packets yet? I mean they're pretty much standardized, what they put out.
Jordahl: Well, I think it's been standardized over a period of time that that's what has been put out I guess. But we've been discussing the possibility of various changes to that. It's been my understanding that we were going to incrementally possibly make some changes this year. Now as I said, I think there's room in between the lines here to do that at the Auditor's level, to make some changes. But if there are going to be any, it might be well to include a line, just adding a line to say there may be some changes this year. Please be alert to issues similar to the separating technology to requesting that, for example, the budgets be indicated relative to the program that they're funding. That they're pertaining to. An example I have in mind particularly is Roadside Vegetation Management as an example of that. That there is a program there, but doesn't have budget lines directly associated with it. So I would, for one, like to see that type of incremental change at least start this year and I think the budget memo should speak to that.
Lacina: What types of budget lines would... Because I'm trying to think of... Everything that's used in that program would have to be covered by an expense line item.
Jordahl: Well it would.
Lacina: So seed and... How would we do that?
Jordahl: Exactly, see the seed, that's exactly one of the main points is the seed, that apparently the seed comes out of some other budget, but not a budget that says seed for Roadside Vegetation Management.
Stutsman: So you want more accountability for the specific programs?
Jordahl: Yes, I would like to see the budget formatted in such a way that we can ask about a program and its budget and see that. Rather than having it sort of spread across this is staff time and this is staff time for things pertaining to ditches, but not necessarily Roadside Vegetation Management. That kind of program focus is something that I think we can get and I'd like to get it this year.
Lacina: The benefit of doing that... So for example, we can go to the budget now and we can look at different areas, but there's a lot of overlap. They use the tractors and types of things that are used in the Road Department for a multitude of purposes, some of which are for roadside seeding. Would you have a percentage breakdown on that equipment, then you're saying?
Jordahl: Well they already do keep track of when it's being used for thing x or thing y, it's just time spent in this type of a project and the staff reports their hours that way I understand.
Lacina: For the DOT in their budget.
Jordahl: So the information upon which this kind of budgeting would be based is present, it's just not in our budgeting as we see it.
Stutsman: Uh-huh. I understand what you're saying, applying it to other departments. You know like the Department of Health, we know exactly how much is spent on the AIDS contract or on the Well Closure Program or whatever. The County Attorney's Office you know how much is spent in litigation or court trials versus collecting of child support and things of that sort.
Jordahl: Yes, I mean it's the basic principal behind the performance-based budgeting that we've been talking about looking at as something to do down the road when we have kind of all the ducks in a row. But there are program items that we know we fund and we have departments keeping track already of how those moneys are being spent, we're just not budgeting that way. For me it would make it a lot easier instead of looking at a line that says staff time, to think about what that staff time is doing. Not to say that we'd go in and change the staff time, but it would make the budget much more transparent, not only to us, but I think to the public.
Bolkcom: I agree with all of that, I guess in terms of the time frame we're working on. I'm mean we're against a deadline to get some instructions out to department heads beginning working on budgets and we're falling back to an improved approach over last year with this memo. A little more detail. As the Board launches the idea of performance-based budgeting, I think that's right around the corner, but I'm not sure that... Maybe incrementally we can do it with this budget, but there's going to be a presentation next week to the department heads. I'd like to get some input from department heads on how best they can organize that information that you want, rather than us try and say here's what we want and then present it and we find 5 or 6 problems with approaching it that way. So I think we're incrementally approaching what you want, but I think we've got budgets to get going on now too.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: Yes, and I agree too. I think that's where we want to be eventually. Whether we can just present it this time, I think it's just going to be too much. But I think we should probably just at least plant the seed and this is where we eventually will...
Jordahl: Well, yes. That's what I'm suggesting is a sentence is what my initial remarks about this said I would like to see is a sentence in here sort of alerting departments to this idea that there may be some changes in the way that we would like budgets reported this year, sort of to hint at this idea of relating expenses as they requested in the budget to programs that they're funding. The departments may find that a reasonable request, a reasonable idea, to start thinking about. I'm not saying that we lay out here in this memo, make it 7 more pages long and explain exactly in huge detail some program that we don't have in place and have it adopted. But rather to leave room for some changes that might be reasonable to do this year. Moving in this direction, again at the Auditor's level.
Lacina: I agree with Joe that I think that's premature.
Stutsman: Yes.
Lacina: If we're going to make a presentation at the department head meeting and try to explain to the department heads this is a tool also for them to use in analyzing where they're at, I think it would be better to make it at that department head meeting and say, for example, here are some things we may be doing in Roadside Management. Or give those examples. But to whip it on them right now...
Stutsman: ...in a memo.
Lacina: I'm not sure they have time. It's better to do it as team effort in a department head meeting and if Sally gives that presentation, I think incorporate Jonathan's suggestion there.
Stutsman: Uh-huh, saying that this is our ultimate goal. But I think it would just...
Jordahl: Raise too many flags.
Stutsman: Yes, and it would be confusing, because I know in the past the memo has been confusing to some department heads. I think it's just best to keep it as simple and direct and use a presentation.
Lacina: But your objective long-term is right on Jonathan. But we need to have things in place, I think, first.
Duffy: I agree.
Jordahl: Well, again there would be room under just the phrase, as I said between the lines, it says here list of line item changes. We might suggest that in the case of individual programs, for example. So I think there's room within the memo that's written. I just want to I guess ask that question, because I thought that it was out intention to do something of that nature, for this budget go-round.
Bolkcom: So the status of the memo, the memo will go out fairly directly in that it's on next Tuesday's agenda to talk about and simultaneously begin the conversation about this performance-based budgeting.
Stutsman: Right.
Bolkcom: Great. I think that works for me.
Stutsman: OK. We'll go ahead and do that. Budgeting process. I guess Jonathan, you and I have to sit down and work on that presentation.
Jordahl: Boy, no kidding.
Stutsman: We haven't had a chance to do that, so I don't know if there is anything more to discuss underneath that for right now. Maybe when we...
Jordahl: Well, you put it on the agenda here, I don't know what beyond what I've already said that you wanted to talk about. I'd certainly be happy to talk about it.
Stutsman: Well I didn't know if there was anything that anybody else wanted to talk about as far as the budgeting process.
Lacina: Well, one assumption that we might clarify, I'm assuming that we're going to operate under the time table which Kim put together for us. Is that a correct assumption?
Bolkcom: So in terms of when budgets are seen, reviewed...
Lacina: When the budget comes in and what our target date for certification and all that. That gives us a process and calendar to operate on.
Bolkcom: So we only need one public hearing this time, with the budget freeze going away.
Stutsman: Yes.
Bolkcom: I would assume. That gives us a little more time.
Stutsman: Uh-huh. It sure does.
Jordahl: What are those dates here?
Stutsman: I don't have those in front of me, but that might be a good thing to hand out Tuesday too, so that everybody is on track with what kind of time frame we're working on.
Jordahl: Because, again, if we're going to be making any changes, however small or incremental they may be, we may want more time both for the departments to implement those and for ourselves to digest them. So the time frame is something that we really need to look at carefully. I haven't seen it.
Bolkcom: Well, perhaps after the meeting next week, when we discuss the performance-based budgeting issue we'll be able to put together some sort of working committee that would begin maybe in the next couple of weeks to develop a few very basic performance measures that this year we could implement.
Lacina: That's a good idea.
Stutsman: Good idea.
Bolkcom: Then add it to this. Folks have told November 26th to submit budgets, as per our memo here. So it gives a little bit of time.
Jordahl: But see if we're looking in that direction, my earlier suggestion that we include at least a sentence in here that says that's happening. Does this have to go out before the department heads meeting?
Bolkcom: I think it would be helpful if it did so people could read it and digest it and bring questions to the meeting.
Stutsman: I do too.
Jordahl: Well, right. So digesting it, I mean what we're asking them to digest, are we not wanting them to have any kind of a...
Bolkcom: I'm not real strong on adding a sentence or not about we may add new things to the budget process this year. I don't think that gives them enough detail to really react to it. Given the presentation that you and Sally will make Tuesday, as we discuss this it seems that any questions that might come up might be answered at that point. It's not going to provide enough detail over the next 5 days for anybody to be prepared to do anything anyway.
Jordahl: But my concern is that the memo, if it is going to be received by them before the department heads meeting, sort of has a tone of business as usual, that things are going to be the same. We will only deal with increases and decreases over your certified budget for 98, sort of the same line items. It sort of sends the message that things are the same and then we're going to come to the meeting and talk about things being different.
Bolkcom: Yes, well I though we had previously talked about the idea of not giving out... You know there's a number of handouts on performance-based budgeting, there was some discussion previously, should we have all of those out or should we just bring them to the meeting? We decided to just bring them to the meeting and begin at the point the discussion of any new stuff.
Stutsman: I think the majority of the Board wants to just leave that out for right now, Jonathan. So we'll just present it during the budget. Anything else on the budget process? Any reports from the Board of Supervisors? Charlie?
Duffy: Well, I have quite a few, but we have a formal meeting coming up. The meeting last night with Iowa City, I was a little disappointed that we couldn't have gotten closer on the SEATS. issue, but maybe it isn't dead yet. We all went to Des Moines last Monday and Tuesday to what amounted to an environmental meeting and some of that was quite interesting. Steve and I, because it was so foggy, did go to the Press Citizen's open house. It was a real nice thing to go to. You get a lot of public comment doing things like that. The reason why I left a little early last night, we had our Johnson County Cattlemen's Annual Meeting. Guess where it was? Down at the fairgrounds. Wade Wagner spoke from Channel 2. It's a very informal meeting and one of the things he said was he had slides when he say over in China, you've probably seen them on Channel 2. China now, several people, and I don't know how they analyze this, but as far as economic development, is really leading the world. Over 60% of the engineers, machinery of all types, are over in China building tall buildings, any kind of economic development. So the U.S. trade with China is very strong and some of them farm, like they did years and years ago, but some of them don't. So it will be interesting the next few years. Wade did a real good job. He's a very knowledgeable guy and we had a good time. So that's it I guess.
Stutsman: Steve?
REPORT (LACINA): MET WITH IOWA SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DALE COCHRAN
Lacina: Well I think most of us hit the same meetings, except Tuesday Charlie and I met with Dale Cochran, the Secretary of Agriculture for the State and talked about diversification and sustainability in agriculture and had a nice visit with him. They've got a lot of programs on if anybody is interested in looking at either organic production or non-traditional ag or any of those types of things. They've done a lot of research and are connected to the land grant colleges throughout the entire mid west, and east and west coast. It was an interesting discussion. That's all I have.
Stutsman: OK. Jonathan?
REPORT (JORDAHL): ATTENDED SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES CONFERENCE IN DES MOINES
Jordahl: Well, I don't want to, I don't think it would be possible for me to steal the entire thunder on this conference we went to Monday and Tuesday, but I thought it was a magnificent opportunity to... The phrase networking is probably not quite what happened there, it was more of a sense of common purpose I think. There were people there, about 300 people, all of whom are involved at some level in actually implementing some changes in the way that people live their economic lives, the way they related to energy and the way they related to each other, the way the businesses are developed. There was a man there, for example, to tell you kind of the caliber of people that were present to talk to and just chat with in the hallway even, to say nothing of the presenters. A gentleman who had just come back from the People's Republic of China, Charlie was mentioning their prominence in the world, who had had the opportunity to address the, I don't know what their Chinese term for it would be, like the Secretary of Agriculture for China and all of the heads of their agricultural sectors in the country. He had 4 hours to talk to these people about sustainable agriculture. He had the attention of everybody in private conferences with this guy, and they were very interested. We're talking about here a billion people that are thinking about implementing sustainable agriculture practices. I mean this was just kind of a hint of level of what was going on at this conference. There was a gentleman, to come down to local scale, from Sioux Center Iowa, who was their City's Energy Administrator, and they had a list of about 12 programs that that small town had effectively done. Starting, for example, with going around with an infrared tomography, I think the word was, to take a picture of every single house and business in the community and mail them to them showing them the energy loss that they were having. As a way of kind of introducing the idea of an energy efficiency program, so they went around and did audits and suggested ways of improving their energy efficiency. All of this, not just because it's ecologically good to use less energy, less fossil fuels or something, but because it was an economic development tool. That if the money that they're paying for energy doesn't leave the community, and he said something like 95% of the energy dollars in Iowa leave the State, let alone the community. I'm not sure about that statistic, but it was a dramatic number.
Bolkcom: It's 98.
Jordahl: 98%. OK, of energy dollars leave Iowa. If that money, instead of leaving Iowa, were not spent in the first place, because of an efficient home, that money stays in the community and can be multiplied 3 times over and can be used for the expansion of business in the community. So it's a nice confluence. I love to see things like this happen where doing the ecologically right thing is the economic development right thing to do as well. So the conference was just inspiring in that regard. There was also a lot on composting and waste management. The City of Cedar Rapids was a prominent example. They have a new paper plant up there and for a lot of places a paper mill is kind of like a fearful thing to have happen. Oh my goodness, the smells and the pollution, what's going to happen? Cedar Rapids gets all of the left over pulp that's too small to make paper out of, little tiny pieces and they systematically compost that together with recovered vegetable matter from restaurants and so forth. They've got these machines that turn this stuff over and they're marketing it. Blue Stem markets this stuff in, I think it's 20 pound bags, of essentially black dirt that they're creating out of what could have just gone into the landfill. So there are just a lot of inspiring ideas about how people are making money out of what had been a problem, how ecological and environmental concerns can work together to help build a stronger economy. This is great. This is when it starts to make sense, when people are making money instead of spending money to deal with environmental problems.
Bolkcom: Good report.
Stutsman: Yes.
Bolkcom: One of the additional things, in talking to some of the organizers of the conference, it was one of the better conferences I think that we've had the opportunity to attend in the state of Iowa on topics. They are very impressed that the 5 of us, 5 local policy makers, and their were a few others our colleagues in Linn County were there, the mayor of Manhattan, Kansas was there, and a few other policy people. But it was mostly agency people, people in business, people in agriculture, but in talking to the sponsors they are very happy to see local policy makers there interested in this topic. I think that they were very surprised by the attendance, that it was as many people as attended. There were folks from all over the Midwest there sharing their stories. A lot of good economic development stories at the community level, how folks are creating businesses and the like. But it was good. Also, last Friday the Communications Committee met for the first time and that committee, as you recall, is one the 7 committees from the Board strategic planning process to begin to talk about ways to improve how we communicate with members of the public about all of the things we're involved with here in County government. It was a good meeting, had a good turnout. We're working on kind of a mission statement for the committee. Charlie and Jonathan both participated in that and we'll be meeting a month from now to continue that discussion. That's it, and SEATS last night.
Stutsman: Uh-huh. S.E.A.T.S. wasn't the only issue on the agenda.
Bolkcom: That's true.
Stutsman: But it certainly got the most attention.
REPORT (STUTSMAN): ATTENDED SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES CONFERENCE IN DES MOINES
Stutsman: I will just echo what everybody else has said about that conference, that it was certainly worth the time. I haven't been to a conference in a long time where I really just got so many ideas and so many different topics were expressed. It was interesting. You look over the agenda and you think oh boy, is there anything at this particular session? Then I went and I thought oh, am I glad I didn't miss it, because it was really worthwhile. One of the interesting things that I got was a lady presented from Southern Ohio who works in the Appalachia community and had worked on an economic development that was focused in 3 areas. In food, computer services, and furniture companies. They really were targeting welfare individuals and to help them get started in home businesses and they provided like with the food, a community kitchen where they could come in and make their preserves or their salsa. They were big on salsa there. Then, helped them develop labels and then market these products, so that these people would be able to have a home business and become entrepreneurs. Very, very successful. It was good to hear those kinds of new ideas that really work for sustainability. Anything else?
Jordahl: Just wanted to give the numbers on that woman's, I think her name was June Holly. She had said that she had created a 150 new businesses that were going in the last 3 years. I tell you that's economic development.
Stutsman: Any items from the public, discussion from the public?
REVEREND BOB WELSH: ATTENDED HUMAN SERVICES MEETING IN DES MOINES
Welsh: Just let me add something. I was in Des Moines on Tuesday and most of yesterday on the budget for Human Services. I was impressed, I'll try to share Sally with you and Jonathan, their budget for results they call it. I was impressed with the way they put their budget together in terms of the number of people being served by the various programs. Each of the sections had these are our main initiatives for this year and then you could see how that was reflected in the budget figures. I'll share that with you, because I thought that spoke very well to me.
Stutsman: Good. Good.
REPORT (DUFFY): RESIGNATION OF KATHY BERRY
Duffy: Sally, there is one thing. Do any of you know Kathy Berry, she presented the...
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Duffy: Kathy Berry is an important cog in the wheel of economic development and she's going into private business.
Stutsman: Oh, she is?
Lacina: Well, actually isn't she going to work for Anne Jorgenson?
Duffy: Yes.
Lacina: Who just got a federal appointment to the... Oh, Anne is on the Commerce Department I think. A major position at the federal level. But Kathy was a huge player in economic development for the State. Charlie, she was one of the staff people that staffed you're Economic Development Committee and will be a big loss to Iowa.
Duffy: It's going to be strange going to meetings in Des Moines and not having Kathy there. Very good, knowledgeable person and of course we know Anne Jorgenson.
Lacina: But a big move up at the federal level.
Duffy: Yes.
Stutsman: So she won't be in Iowa at all?
Lacina: She will not be in Iowa.
Duffy: I don't think so.
Stutsman: OK. We will recess to the formal meeting.
Recessed at 9:29 a.m.; reconvened at 10:00 a.m.
Stutsman: Inquiries and reports from the public? Reports and inquiries from the members of the Board of Supervisors. Anything from the Board? Report from the County Attorney?
County Attorney Pat White: No report.
Stutsman: So we will recess until 1:30 when we will have a work session regarding the comprehensive land plan.
Recessed at 10:01 a.m.: reconvened at 1:31 p.m. as a work session on the Johnson County Land Use Plan.
WORK SESSION: REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
Stutsman said the work group of the Board and staff would review the Land Use Plan; then there would be time for public input at the end of the meeting. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore said at the last work session the Board began reviewing the proposed Land Use Plan by reviewing the goals for each of the identified categories. He said since the last work session Planning Intern Cole Chase has identified in bold on overheads where the Board made changes. Moore believed Economic Development was where they left off.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GOALS
Stutsman said, on the environmental protection goals, the Board included- Reduce soil erosion on residential commercial and industrial construction sites and along Johnson County public right of ways. Planning Intern Cole Chase said this was preliminary language and the Board indicated they were going to refine it. Stutsman asked for any suggestions on refinement at this point. Duffy said sometimes other people use our County roadways, utility companies and people like that; they say they put the terrain back the way they found it, but that's almost impossible.
FUTURE LAND USE GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Duffy said he's not too comfortable with item (b)- While adoption of these policies does not commit the County to any specific recommendations, it should commit the County to actions which are consistent with the policy guidelines and the plan itself. Duffy said he thinks this is a thing that is trying to be rammed down peoples throats and he is not for that at this time. Bolkcom said the statement can be taken to be that it's we're going to do this; he takes it as a statement to say it kind of gives us a little wiggle room. Bolkcom said the Board has all of these policies, but it doesn't necessarily commit the Board to them. Duffy said that's not what it says here. Moore thought the intent was that it was realized that the Board's decisions frequently are based on the County's budgetary constraints and the Board may not be able to implement and accomplish all of the goals identified at one time. He said the first part says that it doesn't commit the Board to any of the specifics, but it should commit them, if they adopt these, to try to be consistent with the policy guidelines that they do adopt. Moore said the Board would try to plan for that with their budget, as well, to accomplish those goals that require resources. He said the other part of that then is the implementation schedule that's further on in the proposed plan.
Stutsman asked Duffy what he would want to be in there. Duffy thought it's a little misleading to the public and it may be worded wrong. Jordahl said there's some confusion about what the words mean. He said he thinks it could be a lot clearer as to what's a policy, what's a recommendation, what's a guideline, what's a goal, and what's an implementation strategy. Jordahl said item (b) seems to be using those words in very specific ways and yet those specific ways aren't very clear, so he agreed it would probably benefit from being recast. Bolkcom said he argued last time he didn't think it adds to the document and he doesn't think they need it.
Chase said this is very general language in comprehensive planning. He said it indicates that while the Comprehensive Plan isn't the legal document, it's a policy guide and it gives the Board more discretion to set it's own priorities. Chase realized that all of these areas are important, but due to budgetary constraints or anything that might make it easier to improve roads at a given time, by say industries willing to collaborate with the County on road improvements, the Board might push something up. He said it lets the Board have more discretion setting priority.
Bolkcom said, if the Board wants that kind of statement, he thinks they should move it to the front in the introductory section of section 11, Future Land Use, as opposed to before the first goal, if they are qualifying what follows Future Land Use, if they want it at all. Jordahl said it seems like a statement about the Comprehensive Plan in general rather than a statement about the goals in particular. He said it seems putting it right before the goals disempowers them. He said they should lead up to the goals and say these are something they want to accomplish. He favored Bolkcom's suggestion to move the statement to be part of an introduction to what they mean by this kind of planning in general.
Duffy said he certainly wants more flexibility. Bolkcom said, when he reads it in this section it says to him there is a bunch of specific things the County should do under environmental protection goals, but disclaimer (b) says if you pass this it doesn't necessarily mandate us to do everything that follows. Duffy said he'll withdraw his statement, because he interpreted it the other way around the way he read it. Jordahl said the reason he agreed with the objection to it is that it isn't clear when you read it what it does mean. He said it seems to be saying- not really; or it's not clear what the difference between recommendations and guidelines is. Duffy said he thought it does say- while adoption of these policies does not commit the County to any specific recommendation, it should commit the County to actions which are consistent with policy guidelines of the plan itself.
Jordahl suggested the wording- specific action- instead of- recommendation. He added it should commit the County to developing policies which are consistent with these guidelines or consistent with the plan. Duffy said he certainly wants more flexibility and by leaving that in there it gives the County more flexibility on these goals. Chase agreed and said this sort of concedes that the Board of Supervisors are the ultimate decision-makers. He thought that's an important statement, but he did like Jordahl's recommendation that the wording recommendation be changed to action. Chase said it does seem to clarify it better. Moore said there are recommendations in there that it's referring to. He said the goals have with them strategies and recommendations for how to achieve those, and that's what it's referring to. Moore said that came from the public, but the Board manages and decides what to budget and they know best where to spend the County's money; so that's why it prefaces that with- commit the County to actions which are consistent with the policy guidelines in the plan itself. Jordahl explained his problem was that you don't find the word recommendation in the section for goals, strategies, and actions.
Moore suggested the wording- to any specific strategies. Jordahl said he'd like to leave strategies out of that section, because it would weaken the plan by saying these are good strategies but again, not really. He said if they like them, then they should put them in there and they should do something about it, like establish fringe area agreements, for example. Jordahl said it doesn't commit the County to any specific actions, meaning that the Supervisors have their freedom to do what they want, more or less, but it should commit the County to developing polices which are consistent with the plan. He cited an example of one agreement with all cities rather than separate fringe area agreements, not as actual action, but as an example of how an action might be different from what's stated in the plan, yet still be consistent with it.
Moore asked whether to change recommendations to actions. Jordahl said that's what he was suggesting. He continued, saying then take actions out of the second half of the sentence, because it gets redundant, and say- should commit the County to developing policies which are consistent with the plan. Moore said it could be reworded a little bit. He said that sounds pretty good and he thought that would embody what it was intended to do. Jordahl agreed, saying because then if the Supervisors said, well they don't want to do it that way, but they want to do it; they'd say let's do it another way, then they wouldn't be out of sync with the plan, because this statement would be in here saying as long as your doing things that are consistent with the plan you're OK. Stutsman asked if the Board wants to leave it where it's at or another section and Duffy said leave it where it's at. Stutsman said it seems logical that it would be under the statement on policy.
Moore read- while adoption of these policies does not commit the County to any specific actions, it should commit the County to policies which are consistent with the plan itself. Jordahl said he had said- to developing policies. Bolkcom said he doesn't think it adds anything. He said to him the statement is kind of a disclaimer that the Board may have some goals, but may not do anything about them. Bolkcom thought that may be better left unsaid. He said he'd hate to have somebody come in and complain to the Board about why they aren't doing something in a specific area and then the Board responds by saying well read letter (b) here. He thought the Board should have goals they are fully intending to try and follow through on to the best of their ability and not have a disclaimer in there that says, well we've got these goals, but we might not do anything. Stutsman said it seems like that's where the criticism with the current Comp Plan came in; it was done and then not followed, with exceptions made all over the place.
Duffy said he was for leaving it in. Lacina said, considering the constraints the County is operating under, he thinks it probably would be wise to leave it in. He said if you state you're going to revamp road systems and so forth, he could see the County in court if they don't have some form of disclaimer that says they're going to be consistent, but they have to have some flexibility; so it serves a purpose. Jordahl suggested clarifying the statement by adding a phrase that would say there may be good reasons that the County could not follow through on something, such as financial limitation, with the wording to be worked out. Lacina said he thinks the wording Jordahl had already proposed really covers that. Moore thought it addressed Duffy's concern about having flexibility for the Supervisors and said Jordahl's wording is good. Stutsman said she supports putting the statement in with the suggested changes in a different place, more under policies than where its at now.
Stutsman asked for discussion on- reduce soil erosion. She asked if it is that OK as amended or if the language needs to be refined. Lacina said it's fine. Stutsman told Chase it is fine the way it is.
Stutsman read another new addition- Promote energy efficiency both in the siting and the construction of residences and businesses in the rural areas. Jordahl said that certainly receives some added impetous after the conference on sustainable communities attended by the Board on Monday and Tuesday. He said he hopes the Board can make some steps towards implementing that one.
(Minutes continue in Part 2)